I've finished the book Intellectual Property and Open Source that I was reading. As
I said, I've found a bunch of interesting topics that I will probably post about whenever I feel you guys need a good nap.
I was somehow disappointed to find out that the book comes with a rather big appendix (roughly 1/3 of the book size) that gathers a printed version of the most common OSI licenses for your
pleasant reading. There is a copy of the Apache License, BSD license, Mozilla License.... Probably the author felt too that he needed to help his readers out with their sleeping problems.
But while I was flicking through the pages I stumbled upon the GPL. Good ol' GPL. The license that is at the very heart of the Open Source movement. Have I read it before? Of course not. Have I read it now? Hell no, I sleep like a baby, why would I? What I did read was the preamble. And it made me think. For those insomniacs among my readers, you can read the
full license, I'm copying only parts adding some emphasis. Here we go:
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is **precisely** where it is most unacceptable.
So, the GPL boils down to:
* You have the freedom to do what you want with the software you just got.
* If you redistribute the software, be kind and pass on that freedom.
Wouldn't be great if the GPL were just this piece of text? Simple, human readable, to the point... The problem is that after this beautiful preamble comes the actual legal text that you can't get your head around unless you are a bloody lawyer. The legal system seems to me like a race to find ways of
not obeying the law. But I leave that for another post.