Day 4 Reading Summary & Reflection

Day 4's readings were centered around the GNU licensing model, and the various GNU class licenses. The readings for Day 4 are:

• A Quick Guide to the GPLv3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html)
• GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)
• Why you Shouldn't use the LGPL for Your Next Library (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html)

The GPL is one of many licenses which authors of any sort of work may license their work with, either exclusively or in concert with other licesnes. Since it is a copyright license all of the things you come to expect about copyright such as enforcement of copyright by the copyright holder stay the same. However, what changes under this license both the binaries and source of the work must be made available for others either for a fee or for free, as well as the other principles of the free software definition, in the case of software.

Let's first start off by discussing the GPLv3 which is the latest version to the GNU General Public License, which has several benefits to its predecessors. The license is an evolution of its predecessor (GPLv2), and doesn't make any radical changes. It builds upon the foundations of free software (see previous day's reading for a good definition), but also adds in protections to threats to the license, that were not addressed in the pervious license. I will briefly discuss some of the benefits of the GPLv3:

The fundamental right to tinker with GPL code and its implementations be it in hardware or otherwise without being subject to copyright laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA in the USA), or various EU directives which prohibit breaking such things as DRM technologies is part of the GPLv3. One example of this is Tivoization, which was allowed under prior versions of the GPL. This is the practice of using GPL code on a device but having technological measures in place to prevent users from changing the code on the device. In the past, if you were to try to bypass these measures you would be breaking anti-circumvention laws (i.e. DMCA in the USA). This new license allows users to bypass such technological measures without legal recourse.

The freedom of knowing that GPL code should now not violate any software patents is another benefit of the new license. Basically, anyone who submits code under the GPLv3 that is covered by a patent must give each recipient a license to patents which the GPL'd code makes use of. As a result anyone using GPLv3 code can rest assured that they will not be held liable for infringing on software patents (which was an outstanding issue that the GPLv2 allowed). Previous versions of the GPL did not consider this potential risk, as software patents, and IP law surrounding software was just beginning when those agreements were crafted. Of course that would mean that certain projects such as Mono could not make use of GPLv3 as they make use of Microsoft's .NET Framework patents, which Microsoft hasn't licensed to the free software community as of this time of writing.

In the past, such as with the GPLv2, the licenses were crafted in a way that were perhaps too strict in some circumstances, and resulted in software that couldn't be licensed as GPL. This list as an example, the copyleft portions of the GPL, where derivative work must follow the terms of the GPL exactly and not add any further restrictions. Unfortunately that meant that free software that had the restriction that derivative works cannot use their trademark, by definition couldn't comply with the GPL. In reality while this was a type of restriction, it really wasn't a restriction in the spirit of the GPL and the free software movement. All the developer was trying to do was protect their name so that it doesn't get misused or associated with other open source projects. As a result, the GPLv3 removes some of these overly restrictive provisions, so that more software can follow the requirements of the spirit of the GPL.

Another advancement in GPLv3, is that this new license is now "compatible," with other free and open source licenses (such as the Apache License v2). As a result of this, more GPL'd code can take advantage of other works in the FOSS community that have licenses which are compatible with the GPLv3. It has also considered a new licensing scenario that was not thought of when the GPLv2 was crafted, which is free and open source software as a service (FOSSaaS).

The ability to combine GPL'd software with non-free code is another possibility with the GPLv3. Two advantages stem from this new addition. Firstly, GNU software and operating systems don't have to include the source code to system libraries anymore (meaning less source that needs to be distributed). Secondly, it means that open source developers can make use of GPL-incompatible system libraries, allowing for even more functionality and operating environment support for GPL'd solutions.

Probably one of the biggest improvements that one can see from the GPLv3, is that the licenses have been reworked so that they comply with international copyright laws. The licenses have also been localized to different regions, meaning that you now have a license that is in effect enforceable worldwide, and respect local laws and customs. As a result, GPL developers and users alike are now on a common ground where they know that the license will be applied evenly and appropriately as stated regardless of where in the world they are.

In the past, if you were to violate the terms of the GPL license, the license would be revoked from you and terminated. The only way you could get the license back was to petition all the copyright holders for a formal restoration of a license which was costly and burdensome. The new license allows for those who violate the GPL to have their rights restored once you stop the violation, unless the copyright holders intervene.

One thing that was discussed a decent amount in the GPL FAQ is the AGPLv3 or Affero GPLv3,which is the third class of license offered for copyright holders to license their work under the GNU licensing model. The AGPL is typically used to cover software
works that are delivered under a software as a service model. This new license covers some of the challenges surrounding freedom in the software as a service world, as well as extending many of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the GPL into the SaaS world
such as access to source code).

They made an important distinction between GNU software and software that is licensed under the GPL. While it is true that all GNU software, must be licensed under the GPL, not all software that is licensed under the GPL is considered GNU software.
Part of the reason why some GPL'd software isn't part of the GNU software package may be because the author has not purused making their GPL sotware a project within the larger GNU software project. It may also be that they don't adhere to the spirit of the
GNU software project, such as creating software that links into a non-free library (something permissible under the GPL but not under the philosophy of GNU)

The main difference between the LGPL (Lesser GNU General Public License) and the GPL (GNU General Public License), both types of GNU licenses, is that the former license permits the use of library/code in a proprietary solution in addition to free programs, while the latter only allows for use of library/code in free programs. While that may seems like a minor difference for many, the Free Software Foundation, and the GNU project feel that it makes all the difference.

This means that the freedoms which the free software movement is based upon may not proprigate to derivative works, supposing the original work was licensed under the LGPL, which in turn can limit the growth of free works in the software world and in society in general. The Free Software Foundation makes the argument that work should only be licensed under the LGPL as a sort of last resort, when the benefits of licensing the work to the broader software community outweigh the potential harm to the growth and development of the free software community. In fact the GNU project is making efforts to make more of its libraries and work be licensed strictly under the GPL.

Finally license compatability is another important aspect of any licensing system. For the GPL, there are two scenarios to consider: GPL licensed software which interact with other GPL class licensed software, and GPL licensed software that interacts with non-GPL software. The latter part of the licensing scenarios is simpler to explain, quite simply GPL software can interact with non-GPL works, so long as the GPL portion meets the requirements of the GPL license. However, some in the free software community may frown on those who make such interactions possible in their software, particular if the GPL software is interacting with propreitary software. The more difficult scenario to explain is when GPL software is interacting with some other GPL software. However, a simple rule to follow is to simply license your work in either GPL v2.0 or later, or LGPL v2.0 or later license forms. In this way your software can interact with other GPL works of the same version or later, with only a minor license conversion to support work done in GPLv3.

The GPL is a controversial license in the sense that it places certain restrictions on the copyright holder that may be incompatible with their morals or ethical views. A good example of this prevented in the GPL FAQ is that GPL'd software cannot have restriction placed on it to prevent its use in military or commercial applications. Therefore, if you are a strong pacifist, and you want to release software under the GPL, there may be scenarios where you must be in conflict with your moral views. Of course the GPL is one of but many different free licenses that are out there, with the possibility for authors of creating their own free licenses to handle their own views. What is promising about the GPL, however, is that it's principles are applicable to a wide variety of software, supposing of course that you believe in free culture.