GNU General Public License

The GNU General Public License (also GPL or GNU GPL ) is the most widely used software license, which end-users ( individuals, organizations, corporations ) the freedoms guaranteed the use of their licensed software, study, distribute (copy) and change to be allowed. Software that provides this freedom rights, free software is called. The license was originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation ( FSF) for the GNU project.

The GPL license can be used by anyone to ensure the freedoms of end-users. She is the first copyleft license for general use. Copyleft means that modifications or derivatives of GPL - licensed works only under the same licensing terms (ie just GPL) may be distributed. Thus, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of freedom of free software and uses copyleft that these freedoms are preserved during retransmission, even if the software is altered or expanded to ensure. Permissive licenses such as the BSD license, however, does not require the copyleft.

Software under the GPL license can be executed for all purposes (including commercial purposes, and GPL - licensed compiler and editors may even be used as tools for the creation of proprietary software ); they may in purely private ( or internal ) use - without distribution without disclosure - be modified without the source code must be disclosed (for distribution or disclosure of the source code and any code changes need to be made ​​available to end users - then comes namely Copyleft on the application to ensure that the end-user freedoms are preserved). However, it has software that runs as an application program under a GPL - licensed operating system such as GNU / Linux, not necessarily under GPL or distributed as open source - the licensing is only one of the libraries and software parts used dependent ( not from the underlying platform ): if for example, an application program contains only our own software, or which no strict copyleft ( no GPL parts so therefore ) is combined with open source software parts subject, then the in-house developed software components must not be placed under the GPL or open source (even is when the current operating system licensed under the GPL). Only in the implementation of software that new (own) Source parts connects with GPL parts (and if this software is distributed or sold ), the source code must retain the users ( under the same license terms: GPL ) is made available. The GNU Lesser General Public License ( LGPL) was to have developed to a weaker copyleft as GPL LGPL does not require that own developed code parts ( which utilize LGPL - parts, but of them are independent: for example, only library call ) under must be provided to the same license terms.

Users and companies are allowed for the distribution of GPL - licensed works money demand ( commercial distribution ), or distribute it for free. This distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial distribution. The FSF explains that freiheitsrespektierende software also the commercial and industrial use and distribution (including resale ) must not restrict: the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be (eg free software ) sold or distributed at any price.

On 29 June 2007, the third version of the license ( GNU GPLv3 ) was published.

• 4.1 Germany
• 4.2 USA
• 4.3 Other on the legal

History

The GNU GPL was written by Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project, in January 1989.

It was based on a unification of similar licenses that were applied in earlier versions of GNU Emacs, the GNU debugger and the GNU Compiler Collection. These licenses were designed specifically to each program, but contained the same provisions as the current GNU GPL. The goal of Stallman was to develop a license that you can use in any project. So the first version of the GNU General Public License, which was published in January 1989 was.

In June 1991, the Free Software released Foundation ( FSF), the second version of the GNU GPL ( GPLv2 ). The main change here was the so-called " Liberty or Death " clause (translated: "Freedom or Death" ) in paragraph 7 This states that if it is not possible, some terms of the GNU GPL observed - for example because of a court ruling - prohibits is to fulfill this License only best. In this case it is thus not possible to distribute the software. Also, the paragraph was added 8: This allows an author geographically restrict the validity of the license to exclude countries where the exploitation of the work is restricted by patents or by copyrighted interfaces. Furthermore, the second version is more compatible with non -US legal systems, since it is based on the Berne Convention.

At the same time a new license with the name GNU Library General Public License (GNU LGPL) with the version number 2.0 ( LGPL v2.0) was released on June 2, 1991, which is of a derived from the GNU GPL, loose version GNU GPL is. It was introduced after it became clear in 1990 that the GNU GPL in some cases ( mostly for libraries ) to restrictive ( restrictive ) was. The GNU LGPLv2 (June 1991) was originally designed for some specific libraries. The license implemented the model of a weak copyleft, and which, although including standing program libraries no longer have the consequence that they must be used programs also Alike licensed, however subject to further developments of the libraries themselves to be the GNU LGPL license. With published in the February 1999 version 2.1 the license GNU Lesser General Public License has been renamed, the new name was a suggestion by Georg Greve.

Since its introduction, the GPL is the most widely used free software license. Most programs in the GNU Project are licensed under the GPL and the LGPL, including the compiler collection GCC, the GNU Emacs text editor and the Gnome desktop. Many other programs by other authors, which are not part of the GNU Project are licensed under the GPL. In addition, all LGPL - licensed products are also licensed under the GPL.

The first draft of the third version of the GPL was presented to the public for discussion on 16 January 2006. It was followed by three further drafts. On 29 June 2007, finally, the final version of the GPL 3 has been published.

The fourth version of the GPL is not planned yet, but Richard Stallman announced in publication of the GPLv3 to publish the GPLv4 within this decade.

GPL Version 3

Sixteen years after the release of version 2 in 1991 took place on 29 June 2007 a ​​revision of the license with the version 3 Some of the biggest and most important changes are:

The FSF as a holder of the GPL under the direction of Richard Stallman coordinated the revision, it was advised by Eben Moglen. Due to the intended universality of GPL 3 resulted inevitably competing interests. On 16 January 2006, a first preliminary draft was published and discussed in order to achieve an optimal result possible for future publication. GPLv3 has been controversial since the publication of the first draft. Controversies was, inter alia, in the design phase, the aspect of tivoisation, which had not been considered in the previous version v2. The FSF proposal is intended to prevent tivoisation future, but Linux kernel initiator Linus Torvalds criticized this approach and argued that tivoisation should remain allowed. Torvalds criticized in particular the first two drafts extremely sharp and still sees no reason to provide the Linux kernel under this version of the license. Strong criticism there was also the part of the Linspire, Novell, MySQL and other companies. Some companies - especially MySQL - amended their license formulating their products from " GPLv2 or later" to " GPLv2 only".

Another aspect of discussion was whether the GPLv3 should allow Affero -like requirements, what the so-called ASP loophole in the GPL ( engl. Original Term: " ASP loophole in the GPL") had closed. However, after some concerns because of the additional administrative effort had been raised, it was decided to keep separated the Affero license as a standalone license of the GPL.

Also, there was controversy about mixing of GPLv2 software with GPLv3 software that is only possible with the optional " or later" clause of the GPL. This clause, however, was by some developers as a pure emergency option but not as a regular way to change the license significantly (English safeboat clause ) considered. Also, the existing projects that have licensed their software without the optional " or later" clause, most notably the Linux kernel, thus incompatible with GPLv3 software and can not exchange with this source code. An example is the library GNU LibreDWG, which now can not be used by LibreCAD and FreeCAD.

After three more drafts, the final version was published on 29 June 2007. As a side effect of the revision number of additional licenses have become GPL - compatible.

Copyleft principle

Distribute all derivative programs under a GPL work may be distributed by licensees only if they are also licensed by the terms of the GPL. This applies only to licensees, not the owner of the rights. ( The holder of the copyright - that is, the author or anyone to whom the author has his rights assigned - can the work under any other license to pass. ) This protection method named Richard Stallman " copyleft " - a play on the word copyright. Goal is to ensure the freedom of a program and the continuing development of others.

This principle is also found in the other licenses - including the GNU licenses ( LGPL, AGPL and GFDL ) - as well as the " Share Alike " means in some of the Creative Commons licenses.

Application to a new program

The GPL includes an appendix that describes how to apply the license to a new program. The appendix contains a default template, which is still in the name of the program, a brief description of what it does, insert the year of creation and the name of the author. The template contains a Notice of liability, which warns that the program comes without any warranty. They licensed the program under the respective GPL version, with the addition of " or ( at your option) any later version", which opens the program for the future conditions of edited versions of the GPL. Thus, the program is automatically also under a new GPL version once the Free Software Foundation publishes such. This license change be made possible on a new version of the GPL and compatibility problems between different versions avoided. Some projects use the template for the GPL version 2 without the addition because they do not agree with the GPLv3. The template still contains a reference to where you can find a copy of the GPL if not accompanied by a copy of the program.

A central registry for GPL - licensed programs does not exist, but the FSF operates together with UNESCO, a list is not exhaustive.

Legal

Germany

With a 2000 to 2002 worked modernization of German copyright law should be enshrined in law that an author can do without adequate remuneration in any case. In theory, this would have for traders who sell free software, had a legal uncertainty, since programmers may in retrospect a share of the proceeds could ask what would have opened possibilities of abuse. With the addition of the bill to the so-called Linux clause, the GPL ( and similar licenses, the " free receive simple utilization rights for anyone to admit ," see § 32 paragraph 3 of the Copyright Act 3 set), however, placed on a firm legal basis.

The District Court of Munich I confirmed in a written verdict of 19 May 2004 (Case No. 21 O 6123 /04) an injunction restraining a company had been prohibited redistribute Netfilter without complying with the GPL. This was the first time that the GPL has played a significant role in a German court. The court assessed the activities of the defendant as a disregard for some terms of the GPL and thus as copyright infringement. This corresponded exactly to the forecasts, the Eben Moglen of FSF for such cases had done before. The basis of the decision, the German translation of the GPL, which was rudimentary assessed for validity by the court as terms and conditions. In some clauses complicated legal constructions or interpretations were necessary to achieve the admissibility under German law. The opposing party had the admissibility of the terms of the GPL is not attacked, but denied ever being the correct defendant.

On 6 September 2006, the GPL was the District Court Frankfurt am Main component of a successful trial of D-Link ( Az: 2-6 O 224/ 06).

On 4 October 2006 the validity of the GPL was confirmed in a further judgment. An authorized representative, the programmer of three GPLed aid programs to the start of an operating system kernel, moved to a warning against a company in court, which had the programs used in its firmware without disclosed their source code and the GPL resolved to have. The claims in the injunction request was partially fulfilled, so that the court ruled that the company owned the copyright of the plaintiff violated and thus call origin and the purchaser of the firmware as well as the court and warning costs and the cost of the effort to establish the infringement must bear. The defendants had while attempting to defend themselves with a whole range of usual arguments, including invalidity of the GPL because of anti-competitive nature, proof recycling ban for copyright infringement in the determination of the offense (ie unauthorized decompilation of the firmware - the applicant had only observed the boot process ), principle of exhaustion and lack of right to sue, because in the context of open source development can be expected from a co-authorship and only the consent of the other owners was necessary for the action. However, the court rejected these arguments from all.

USA

On 21 March 2006, the American Daniel Wallace failed with a lawsuit at the District Court in the State of Indiana against the FSF. He had taken the position that the GPL is invalid. You forcing by the availability of free copies of software a price agreement between the different providers, resulting in a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act constituted. The Judge John Daniel Tinder did not follow this view, noting that an antitrust violation could hardly be detected if the applicant's interests diverge from those of consumers. Lawsuits against Red Hat, Novell and IBM were also dismissed.

Others on the legal

In order to protect the rights of GPL - authors and to fight against infringements, Harald Welte founded the project gpl- violations.org in 2004. Gpl violations.org is already several times successfully pulled on behalf of programmers in court. In several other cases, an out of court settlement was reached.

Copyright

The copyright of the license text itself is accompanied by the Free Software Foundation (FSF ). This allows the head of the license the copying and distribution of license, but prohibits the modification of the license. This will ensure that the rights and obligations which are guaranteed by the GPL can not be modified by the license text is modified. Also, is prevented by the fact that different incompatible versions of the GPL arise. The FSF allows the creation of new licenses on the basis of the GPL, as long as they have their own new name, do not include the Preamble to the GPL and not to refer to the GNU Project. This was originally for example, with the GNU Affero General Public License, before it was taken over by the FSF.

The GPL denies the copyright laws of the state concerned does not, but accepts them and uses them to enforce the rights and obligations described. A licensed under GPL work is not in the public domain. The author reserves - if not explicitly stated otherwise - the copyright in the work, and on the other hand to take legal action in case of non compliance with the license terms in the position.

Dissemination

On the open source hosting SourceForge are licensed about 70 % of the software under the GPL is currently (July 2006). Of the 3489 projects at BerliOS 67% ( 2334 projects) are under the GPL ( as of 2008). The Black Duck Software managed Open Source Resource Center is the dissemination of the GPLv2 under open source projects with 32.65 % and the GPLv3 with 11.62% (as of 2012). The company operates a Palamida GPL3 -Watch List, according to which are registered by the 10,086 registered projects about 2946 under the GPLv3, but the selection of projects is not representative. The figures for the Open Source License Resource Center findings rather suggest that about three to four percent of the GPL projects currently (July 2008) and use the third version. Not taken into account is that the standard text of the Free Software Foundation for the release of a program under the GPL provides that the use is permitted under any later version of the GPL. Thus under the GPL 2 licensed programs that use the standard text, also under the GPLv3 and future versions available.

Criticism

Criticism of the GPL is mainly composed of criticism of the strong copyleft and criticism of the principle of free software. For example, Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer called Linux in 2001 because of the impact of the GPL as cancer. Stephen Davidson of the World Intellectual Property Organization coined in a guide on the open-source model ( in which he draws general conclusions rather restrained ) the name for the viral copyleft properties of the GPL. An exception are objections to the strong copyleft in program libraries. The FSF considers this true also for justified in principle, not be issued for programs for which it owns the rights, sometimes for strategic reasons exceptions, for example to increase the acceptance of a library. In these cases, the Lesser General Public License ( LGPL) application, a GPL version, which explicitly permits such use without copyleft claims to the calling program is set to.

Some journalists and developers by the low migration of projects from the old to the newer GPLv2 GPLv3 that a split in the community along the borders of the two license versions arises. The significantly enhanced GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2 rated as essential, compatibility between the two licenses is given only via the optional " or later" clause, which is not used by some projects, such as the Linux kernel. In 2011, four years after the publication GPLv3 are loud Black Duck Software data, only 6.5 % of all open source projects under GPLv3, while 42.5% of GPLv2 subject to. 2013, six years after the release of GPLv3 is loud Blackduck data GPLv2 is still by far the most commonly used license. Other authors made ​​in 2011 in connection with this split an increased movement towards permissive licenses from, away from copyleft licenses.

Miscellaneous

• Microsoft has already sold a product with GPL - licensed software, despite the declared aversion to the license with Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX itself.