Warning this article may contain opinions of the author that you and iTWire don't agree with.
Visit the last page to have your say forum.
PDFPrintE-mail

GPL: why can't a lawyer understand it?

Opinion and Analysis

Nearly a year after the Free Software Foundation released an updated version of the General Public License - the GPLv3 - there appears to be a great deal of confusion about what the license actually means, if one goes by two recent publications.

In one case, this is due to the ignorance of the writer and I have already dealt with it in detail; in the second, it appears to be a wilful misinterpretation of the conditions imposed by the GPLv3, for reasons best known to the author.

No matter what the reason, Edmund J. Walsh, a lawyer based in Boston, has made some claims about the GPLv3 that do merit some comment.

Walsh starts out by saying that for-profit companies should re-evaluate the ways in which they use free and open source software because of what he calls recent developments - the release of the GPLv3 (released last July, 11 months ago) and cases filed against four companies for GPL violations (this occurred in December 2007, six months ago - and all the cases have been settled out of court).

It's actually fairly easy to verify these dates and events before putting finger to keyboard.

Walsh goes on to talk of "the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies." What conflict? Red Hat is selling open source software and always has and last I heard, they are starting to talk of the B word - billions. Free and open source software is issued under licensing terms which differ from those utilised by proprietary software companies and the license has nothing to do with the fact that the software can be sold.

Let me say it plainly: free software can be sold. Yes, free software can be sold. There is no restriction on how much you can charge for services connected to free software. The word free refers to the rights granted to the user.
 
Written by Richard Stallman in 1991, six years after he founded the Free Software Foundation, the GPLv2 concerned itself with freedoms that the software should provide to any user: freedom to run the program for any purpose; to study the source code and then change it if one wished; redistribution to help one's neighbour, and freedom to change it and redistribute one's improvements along with the original code.

The same rights are granted in the GPLv3.


SPONSORED PRESS RELEASES

Websense Security Labs Reports ‘User Trust’ Targeted Attacks; Over 1 in 10 ‘Top Search’ Results Categorised as Malware; Increased Focus on Web 2.0
Websense, Inc. today revealed the findings from its bi-annual research report: Websense Security Labs, State of Internet Security, Q3-Q4 2009.

Featured IT jobs

A varied DBA role that involves multitasking in a dynamic software development environment dealing with challenging customer needs on a daily basis.
Skills Tags:   Linux  Oracle  UAT
A position has just become available for experienced Program/Project Manager to join a large organisation on a major Data Centre upgrade....
Skills Tags:   SAP
URGENT! Experienced BDM needed for senior sales role in Melbourne - must have ITSM consultancy sales experience.
Skills Tags:   C  Development  EDI  IT
CRITICAL INCIDENT COORDINATOR - 24 x 7 shifts - 3 month CONTRACT ONLY...
Skills Tags:   Excel  IT  ITIL  Management  Reporting

Editors Picks

Stories you may have missed 

What iTWire offers for free

E - mail News SMS Headlines Desktop Alerts News Feeds Job Alerts Technology Events Press-Releases