Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FSF Releases Third Draft of GPLv3

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:43 AM
from the complaining-to-the-right-people dept.
Software Linux
johnsu01 writes "The Free Software Foundation has announced publication of the third discussion draft of the GNU General Public License Version 3. Because quite a few changes have been made since the previous draft and important new issues have surfaced, the drafting process has been extended and revised to encourage more feedback. The most significant changes in this draft include refinements in the "tivoization" provisions to eliminate unwanted side effects, revision of the patent provisions to prevent end-runs around the license, and further steps toward compatibility with other free software licenses. The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: RMS Explains GPLv3 Draft 3 139 comments
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "A transcript is now online of a talk Richard Stallman gave in Brussels earlier this week about the discussion draft 3 of GPLv3. Among other things, he explained how it will address the Novell-MS deal, from Novell's point of view and from Microsoft's, and he explained how the tivoisation clause was narrowed to make it more acceptable in the hope that it will be used by more people. After the talk he also gave an interview, and yesterday, draft 2 of LGPLv3 was released."
[+] Your Rights Online: Eben Moglen — GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell 163 comments
Linux.com's Joe Barr was recently able to sit down with Professor Eben Moglen at the San Diego Red Hat Summit and discuss the GPLv3 and what it means beyond the Microsoft/Novell deal on video. "Professor Moglen explains briefly about GPLv3's work on globalization of the software license, preventing harm to others by members of the community, and the most contentious in earlier drafts, DRM."
[+] News: FSF Releases Fourth and Final Draft of GPLv3 237 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The most notable changes found in this latest draft include making GPLv3 compatible with version 2.0 of the Apache license, ensuring that distributors who make discriminatory patent deals after March 28 may not convey software under GPLv3, adding terms to clarify how users can contract for private modification of free software or for a data center to run it for them, and replacing the previous reference to a U.S. consumer protection statute with explicit criteria for greater clarity outside the United States. The draft also does not prohibit Novell from distributing software under GPLv3 'because the patent protection they arranged with Microsoft last November can be turned against Microsoft to the community's benefit,' FSF executive director Peter Brown said."
[+] News: GPLv3 Released 278 comments
A GNU Dawn writes "The GPL v3 has just been released. Among other things, the released version grandfathers in the Novell deal so that Microsoft's SLES coupons will undermine their patent threats, replaces references to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act with more specific language, and clarifies that using BitTorrent to convey a GPLed work is not a breach of the license (it might be one, technically, in GPLv2). The GPL FAQ has been updated to cover the new changes." Commentary is available over at Linux.com (which is owned, along with Slashdot, by Sourceforge).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FSF Releases Third Draft of GPLv3 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • 3rd-party Analysis? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Erioll (229536) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @11:50AM (#18517061)
    Are there any articles about this from 3rd-party sources, and not the FSF themselves? I'd really like some analysis that isn't from those that produced it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SpaceLifeForm (228190)
      Link [groklaw.net]

      Read it over and over for the next 3 days.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AlexGr (1054296)
      By Peter Galli (eWeek)
      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2108409,00.as p [eweek.com]
      The Free Software Foundation just published this morning a new draft of the last version of the General Public License, GPL3. This version takes aim specifically at the Microsoft and Novell agreement and seeks to prevent future similar agreements. Peter Galli/eWEEK reported on the news questioning if this new version will forever doom the license. "The draft has evolved over time, but GPLv3 is still clearly designed to build unscalabl

  • Can they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by venicebeach (702856) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @11:51AM (#18517083) Homepage Journal
    The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal

    Is that really an option? Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it was distributed and agreed to? I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3-- and even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?

    • Re:Can they do that? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@pe[ ]s.com ['ren' in gap]> on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:11PM (#18517357) Homepage Journal
      Yes. What RMS was asking for was whether GPL3 code should include pernicious terms, from the start, that apply to people who had already committed a deal like the Novell-Microsoft one on GPL2 code but not yet on GPL3 code. The other option is to wait until said scoundrels commit the same deal on GPL3 code.

      Bruce

      • Re:Can they do that? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@pe[ ]s.com ['ren' in gap]> on Wednesday March 28 2007, @01:38PM (#18518579) Homepage Journal
        I'm going to have to correct myself. The specific sentence in square brackets, which means it's proposed but not accepted, would exempt anyone who has made a Novell-Microsoft-like agrement before today from enforcement of the terms even on GPL3 software. So, FSF is really asking "should we let Novell and Microsoft off, and just apply this to future violators?" I don't think they'll do that.

        Bruce

      • Re:Can they do that? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@pe[ ]s.com ['ren' in gap]> on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:15PM (#18517395) Homepage Journal
        You missed the part about "upgrading Linux to GPL3". Some people out there think Linus controls the license to all of what goes into a distribution, not just the kernel.

        Everybody: Linux is just the kernel. Linus does not control anything else, and has less than absolute control over that.

        Bruce

          • Re:Good luck. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@pe[ ]s.com ['ren' in gap]> on Wednesday March 28 2007, @01:46PM (#18518687) Homepage Journal
            but it isn't possible to run a gpl2 userland without the linux kernel.

            Say what? Where do you think it was developed before Linux came along?

            On Sun. RMS used to program on a Sun. GNU LIBC existed before it was ported to Linux. GCC did. Emacs did. Most of the userland did. Linus Torvalds did the last part, not the first.

            I can think of a lot of kernels besides HURD and Minix. You could start with BSD and Solaris, but that's hardly the end of the list.

            Bruce

  • Retroactively? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr.Ned (79679) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @11:57AM (#18517165)
    "The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."

    I didn't see that in any of TFAs; does anyone have a link?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Bruce Perens (3872) *
        While you can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, you can use terms of your license to prevent Microsoft and its partners from distributing your software once they do this. And in this case, MS has a written covenant to the Novell customer, which is ample evidence to show a judge. In addition, the actual terms of the agreement will come out with the 10-Q report for Novell, and that's evidence too.

        Bruce

          • I disagree. The terms of the license might be able to prevent Microsoft from distributing your software, but they can't put any restrictions on the benefactor of Microsoft's covenant without devolving into silliness.

            Actually, they really could, as long as there is a contract or agrement to shield users between the party making the covenant to users and the partner who is doing the distribution of GPL3 software.

            But in this case it's even more clear, since Microsoft is distributing coupons that can be redee

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Bruce Perens (3872) *
                I think we're not really protecting the freedom of GPL code if we allow some people to be licensed to run the code and some not to be. That's the point of the GPL2 language to put everyone in the same boat regarding patents. But we saw that the language was not sufficient because someone constructed a loophole around it. We can't assure that we can protect against all loopholes, but we can try our best and revise when necessary.

                The Novell-Microsoft deal really strikes at developer motivation. Why write "fre

  • Sadly... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Infinityis (807294) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:00PM (#18517191) Homepage
    I remember when freedom wasn't quite so complicated and obfuscated. With things getting so verbose and convoluted, more people will probably eschew things like GPLv3 just to keep things unpretentious.

    • Re:Sadly... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:11PM (#18517359)

      Freedom under the GPL has always been complicated, because it means free-as-in-FSF. As I've observed before, that isn't the same as "free" by any English language definition, which would be more akin to a BSD-style licence.

      The problem we're now seeing is that the FSF is redefining its own concept of free to match whatever behaviour it currently perceives to be in conflict with the ethics of those driving it. They're welcome to do that, of course, but it's beyond me why anyone else (including those who distribute their code under GPL2) would care, unless their personal ethics happen to match the FSF's exactly. Then again, I also rather suspect that a lot of people who distribute their code under the GPL do so because it's trendy in certain circles rather than because they've ever read the fine print anyway, so I'm already doomed to unhealthy karma oblivion. ;-)

      • Re:Sadly... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by init100 (915886) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @01:12PM (#18518209)

        Freedom under the GPL has always been complicated, because it means free-as-in-FSF. As I've observed before, that isn't the same as "free" by any English language definition, which would be more akin to a BSD-style licence.

        Would it? The BSD is akin to "You can do anything you want", while the GPL is akin to "You can do anything you want, except killing, raping, robbing or otherwise harming other people". The GPL is free, it just tries to stop people from restricting other peoples' freedom.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by JesseMcDonald (536341)

            It's the difference between a free society and anarchy.

            Bad example: anarchy means "no rulers", not "no rules". An anarchic society can also be a lawful and free society.

            For that matter, I would go so far as to say that any society which is not anarchic cannot be lawful, because it contains, by definition, an organization not bound to follow the laws which bind the rest of society. Any universally lawful & free society must be anarchic. (This is not to say that all anarchic societies will necessari

          • It's fascinating to see an argument like this made about a licence whose supporters often claim that it would be unnecessary if copyright were abolished. :-)

            In any case, I don't think your analogy (nor the more dramatic-sounding alternatives [slashdot.org]) is at all fair. If your code is truly free for others to use, then they should be able to do anything they want with it. Nothing any one person does with it will remove the ability of any other person to use your code in any other ways they see fit. There is no cost

  • What happened to web apps? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by i_should_be_working (720372) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:06PM (#18517263)
    I only skimmed the draft, but it seems in this whole Novel-Microsoft thing, the part about web-apps has been lost. There was talk about getting this base covered.

    Right now if I write some code and GPL it someone can take that code, use it in the regular ways that is permitted by the GPL, but then instead of distributing it, they turn it into a web-app and charge people to use the code. Since they are not technically distributing the binaries, they don't have to release the code, whether they've modified it or not.

    • Re:What happened to web apps? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyclop (780354) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:24PM (#18517535) Homepage Journal

      And I've never understood why this is bad.

      A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution. The code runs on the web server and never leaves it. So why should I bother about it? In what sense it's different from me modifying a GPL program on my machine only and having my friends using it on my machine?

      • "A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution."

        What's the real difference? Think of it as "virtual" distribution via the Web.
        GPL was written before the rise of web apps, but as web apps have become more and more used, GPL must change with the times. Imagine that in the next 5 years, 80% of apps are web apps, and GPL doesn't cover them. GPL is pretty much useless then. Imagine that in the future, Microsoft makes a web version of Office. There'd be nothing preventing them from using GP

        • GPL was written before the rise of web apps

          But it was written after the rise of console apps. To the best of my knowledge, if I hack a GPLv2 text app and you SSH into my server to run it, I don't have to give you the modified source. I'm not distributing the app to you - I'm just letting you execute it. In what way is that essentially different from running an application via a web service?

  • Reaction to GPLv3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Experiment 626 (698257) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:23PM (#18517517)

    I'm curious how the adoption of GPLv3 will play out. The kernel is going to stay at v2 for the foreseeable future, so the new version will mostly apply to the GNU tool chain. There are enough companies out there who like the loopholes of v2 (TiVo, SuSE, etc.), will they maintain a fork of the code that stays licensed under v2, perhaps individually, perhaps as a collective effort amongst those with reason to balk at v3? Another possibility is to just keep on using versions of the code that were released under v2. Some things, like /bin/ls, really don't change enough that everyone will feel compelled to step up to the latest version. On the other hand, if the GNU software the company depends on is gcc, staying at a particular release and not having support for new processor technologies in your compiler would start to become problematic after a while.

    So, how do you guys think the companies for whom adopting GPLv3 would eliminate loopholes will react to the new license? Somehow, I don't think they will just all go, "Oh, so that's how you intended Free Software to be used. We will play nicely from now on."

    • Re:Reaction to GPLv3 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@pe[ ]s.com ['ren' in gap]> on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:37PM (#18517737) Homepage Journal
      Tivo could live with a GPL3 kernel if they wanted to. I've explained how here [technocrat.net]. Novell? The big problems for them will be GNU LIBC, which everything uses, Samba, and many other programs. They run the risk of either falling behind or having their expenses jump significantly. But I hear the Linux business is up for sale, anyway, and that they will eventually break the company into several pieces. That's why it's called SuSE now, instead of "Novell Linux".

      Bruce

  • Quick issues (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gclef (96311) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:32PM (#18517637)
    A few thoughts from a *very* quick read of it:
      * They mention you need to supply "Corresponding Source" (eg, signing keys for Tivo-ization) to all "User Products" but defined "user Products" to basically mean anything that goes in the home. So business-style rack appliances that are not designed for the home can Tivo-ize at their leisure. This is apparently intentional, according to the rationale pdf. This seems....messy, and a huge potential hole.

      * Moving away from calling out specific parts of the US code for the anti-DMCA parts and over to calling out the WIPO is a bit better for international users of the GPL, but they then call out US code again in the definition of a home device. This is problematic. Defining a for-the-home product in other countries will be difficult. (What do we do for this license in countries that have no such distinction?) They seem to acknowledge this in the rationale PDF, and say that they're evaluating it.

    (Personally, I think these two issues are just the beginning of the uglyness with the anti-tivo-ization stuff, and they'll eventually be forced to drop these clauses in the name of sanity, but that's just me.)

      * The anti-Novell portion is *incredibly* confusing. There has to be a better way to say that. It seems to be written just to target Novell and the specific thing Novell is doing, which I think invites problems. For example, what if the third party you make a deal with isn't in the business of distributing software? (such as the patent/IP houses that exist all over the place) Is a "we won't sue your customers" deal okay then? This section needs a *lot* more thought.

  • My opinion is... (Score:4, Funny)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @01:55PM (#18518795)
    IANAL, but OMG FFS FSF, GPL3 can't work AB. AFAIUI, we need GPL3 AEAP, if Novell/MS's deal 2B AMF.

  • Concerns for the GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Roger W Moore (538166) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @03:11PM (#18519745) Journal
    I now have two concerns about the GPLv3 after trying to wade through that document:

    1) Will I be able to understand the license? (and if not do I really want to release code under it?) I would strongly suggest a non-legalase summary be included in the final version.

    2) Will it actually be worth anything outside the US? Every single legal reference pointed to US law, they take definitions from existing US laws and they comment that certain provisions are compatible with US law. I'm beginning to wonder if RMS and co. realize that a majority of the world lives outside the US.

    Perhaps they are attempting to concentrate on US law and then branch out into the rest of the world later but to me that seems a somewhat dubious tactic since the thing looks so complex at the moment that I'm not convinced that it can be compatible with multiple countries' laws all at once. So I also wonder if there will end up being multiple versions of GPLv3 as you go around the world.
    • GPLv3 cannot be retroactive.

      The question asked is whether the provisions that prevent deals such as the MS-Novell deal should have an explicit exclusion for that deal by Novell. i.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?

      That's the question asked.
      • The current common header for the license says: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
        modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

        This means that the program you write is also covered by GPL3, as soon as it's out. I guess that is what retroactive means in this contest

          • Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:4, Informative)

            by F452 (97091) * on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:23PM (#18517513) Homepage
            I'm sure back in 1991, the GPLv2 looked like some commercially useless hippie fantasy also. Let's hope in 2020, we're not all enjoying a trusted platform world where we can't effectively modify the GPLv2 underpinning.

            • Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Interesting)

              by g2devi (898503) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @02:02PM (#18518899)
              Yes. You're correct. I still have the early Computer Languages (or was it Dr. Dobbs?) magazine article where they interviewed Stallman about the newly released Free Software Manifesto. The tone of the article portrayed Stallman as being a Don Quixote-like idealists that had little chance of succeeding (after all, everything was proprietary and the moment you make something free like in the 60s someone will come along and make it proprietary again). But he was looked at favourably in the same way that kindly and generous old grandfather that's out of touch with reality is.

              Things have definitely changed since that day, but the threat of finding loopholes in the GPL to lock it up again and return us to the 1980s still remains. It remains to be seen of the GPLv3 helps or hinders free software (it has to maintain a fine balance between pragmatism and idealism). But at least the "additional permissions" feature of getting the GPL to be more compatible with other licenses (and reduce license fragmentation) and the Novell-Microsoft patent feature are definite improvements.

            • Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Insightful)

              by mrchaotica (681592) * on Wednesday March 28 2007, @05:52PM (#18521937)

              some major projects... in no special order examples are WINE, KDE, QT, Java and Firefox, GCC, Gnome (I assume we will have a LGPLv3, too)

              GCC is the biggie there; since it's an official GNU project (which means its copyright is owned by the FSF) you know it's going to become GPL v3 as soon as the license is ready.

        • The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software.

          You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone. The point is that you can't create privileged groups like "people who have paid lots of money for protection" who have more rights than others.

          I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.

          Bruce

          • Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ivan256 (17499) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:41PM (#18517791)

            You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone.


            The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone. Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.

            I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.


            It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.
            • It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.

              It's based on the principle: we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

              Bruce

            • 'The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone.'

              True. That is the point.

              'Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.'

              You make it sound like the result would be users open to litigation. The distributor can't just distribute the software to users anyway, they lose their right to distribute under the GPLv3. There will be no unprotected users because the patent encumbered modified version is barred from distribution to users. Rather than some users being protected and downstream users being screwed, there will be no users unless the vendor removes patent encumbered code or negotiates a deal that DOES allow them to pass patent protections downstream.

            • The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.

              You have this backwards. The requirement that the patent license is provided to everyone *IS* the protection against patent suits for using GPLv3 software.

              If a company distributes software under GPLv3, then elects to sue someone for using that software in violation of a patent, they open themselves up to being sued for violating the copyrights in that software by other contributors. Because the contributors have said 'You may not copy my code if you don't give everyone a patent license to use it and the derivative works.'

              Separately, you are also only looking at half of the equation. Some users who are willing to pay to not be sued may lose out on being able to have the software. BUT, that doesn't matter any more than it matters that I've 'lost' the ability to run Windows unless I buy it. What *IS* important is that the contributors to free software have the copyrights in THEIR work protected. They have agreed to distribute their work to the community so long as it can be freely redistributed. If you do not prohibit distribution of software with a patent license, you are allowing companies to take the free software, modify it with patent-encumbered software, then UN-freely redistribute it.

              This strikes to the very core of what free software is. If you're going to use free software, then you need to provide free software. Patent encumbered software isn't free, and just like we wouldn't allow GPL software to end up in a proprietary binary sold for profit without source, EVEN THOUGH it denies some users that software, we shouldn't let it end up in patent-encumbered source either, EVEN THOUGH it also denies some users that software.

              Preventing non-free software from being created with free software is the whole point, isn't it?

        • Adoption? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@pe[ ]s.com ['ren' in gap]> on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:42PM (#18517803) Homepage Journal
          I don't think they have to worry about adoption. They have all of the FSF-owned software going to GPL3, which means that you can't really make a distribution without accepting GPL3. And most likely things like Samba, MySQL, Solaris and other Sun offerings, essentially anything owned by people who don't want the trick that Novell and Microsoft pulled to apply to them. I think that will be a lot of people. In the end, it might even be the kernel team. But that will take 1 to 2 years to play out.

          Bruce

    • > I thought GPL3 had been out for ages at this point. You mean it's still just a draft? Talk about the glacial speed and progress of committees. How long has GPL3 taken so far - and it's still not completed?

      Hey, release early, release often.

      (Which seems as good a time as any to link to the UPS Debugger Song, better known as "Just one more hack and then I'll put it on the 'net" [kent.ac.uk].)

    • Re:I thought it was out already?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by cronius (813431) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:09PM (#18517319)
      This is a not a program you can change if it's broken, this is a license that could possibly have far reaching effect on the nature of free software. The last license was released over 15 years ago, you want to make it right so that v3 can last another 15 years or more. The license is complicated, and quite political, there are no easy answers.

      Pluss, they want to take their time so that anyone who wants can voice their oppinion and be heard. Why rush it? Let them take their time and make it right, the first time.
      • 0. Create a derivative work based on GPL'd software.
        1. Sell your derivative work to a distributor as two CDs, one with the compiled code, and one with the source.
        2. Distributor discards the CDs with the source and sells the CDs with the binary.
        3. PROFIT!

        Why this works:

        Copyright does not prohibit distribution, only copying. The original party meets their GPL requirement for distributing the source by distributing the source with the binary.

        The distributor has no obligation to distribute the source, since th

        • Re:How to Circumvent GPLv3 v1 DRAFT (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mr_mischief (456295) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @05:22PM (#18521527) Journal
          What part of a "distributor" undertaking actions to "distribute" copies of a work does not sound like "distribution" to you?

          Yes, distribution is in fact one of the rights held only by the copyright holder and those licensed by the copyright holder. In fact, distribution is one of the rights afforded exclusively to the copyright holder and licensees under US copyright law and under the WIPO and WCT treaties. So if you don't follow this license, you can't _distribute_.

          Bitlaw page about copyright [bitlaw.com]
          US Copyright Office [copyright.gov]
          Wikipedia page on copyright [wikipedia.org]
          Findlaw's copyright page [findlaw.com]
          Wikipedia WIPO page [wikipedia.org]
          Dutch copyright law page on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (in English)
          Japanese copyright law chapter II (note section 3, subsection 3) [cric.or.jp] (translated to English, obviously)

          The entry for the terms in the Table of Contents for the GPL v2 is called "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION".

          Here's the fourth paragraph of Preamble of the GPL v2, and notice it doesn't say "if you are the one to make the copies you distribute" anywhere:

          For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
          gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
          you have. 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.


          Notice that it doesn't say you have to have modified it to be bound by the license.

          Here's paragraph 5 of the license proper (emphasis mine):

          5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
          signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
          distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
          prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
          modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
          Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
          all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
          the Program or works based on it.


          The only reason the license repeatedly says "copy and distribute" is that it is granting both rights. It is not because the two are separable and you must agree to the license only if you do both.

          • Re:I thought it was out already?! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by osu-neko (2604) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @01:13PM (#18518237)

            So? does a low slashdot id equate to a knowledgeable, reasoned poster? I think not.

            Sounds like a good metric to me! ;)

            On the original topic: There's no need to rush GPLv3 out the door. There's a perfectly good GPLv2 out there serving the community as we speak, so why rush? Might as well take the time to make sure everything is the best it can be before release. It's not a matter of being "complete" -- the first draft was a complete document. It's a matter of being as good as it can be. If there was nothing like it out there already, that'd be a good reason to release quickly, but since there is, might as well take all the time desired, heck, take all the time in the world, it's not like we need a GPLv3, the GPLv2 is perfectly serviceable.

    • There is no "retroactive" change (Score:5, Informative)

      by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @11:59AM (#18517183) Homepage Journal
      There is no "retroactive" change. That comment refers to the last setence of the 2nd last paragraph of section 11. That sentence, which is in square brackets, would make the ban only apply to deals that are made starting from today, so that deal by Novell and MS would not trigger the ban on distributing the software.

      So the public are asked: should Novell be banned from distributing GPLv3'd software?

      And, imlicitly, I guess, Novell are asked: What assurances can you give us to win our trust so that giving you this exception is justified?

    • Why GPL v3? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MS-06FZ (832329) on Wednesday March 28 2007, @12:03PM (#18517215) Homepage Journal

      Do we REALLY need a GPL v3?
      Probably - v2 was written in a time in which the scenario of the GPL being tested in court was rather more remote. One of the important reasons for v3 is to further lawyer-proof the license.

      The question most people seem to be wondering about with v3 is whether it's too ambitious - seeking to prevent abuses of the license in ways some disagree with. Personally, I haven't made up my mind, exactly. I think the underlying premise of the GPL is great - that it is a license that allows free usage in a way that encourages more free usage - and GPL3 is taking that further, by trying to keep people from taking advantage of free software while simultaneously using patents against it, by trying to prevent people from using free software to create devices that restrict users' freedom (the idea being, that if someone wants a big DRM box, they can write the code themselves)

      The flip side, of course, is at some point free software has to be something you give. At some point you need to let go, and let people use the stuff. That's why you wrote it, right? So people would use it. This is the sticking point for me - I like what GPLv3 is trying to accomplish - I even want to support what it's trying to accomplish - but sometimes, if you want your gift of software to be really useful, you need to stop attaching quite so many strings to it.

      But all that aside, the real problem with the GPL v3 is that new clause that RMS will personally strangle a kitten every time someone uses GPLv3 code in a DRM box. We've got to see about getting that clause removed.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.