FSF Releases Third Draft of GPLv3 390
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."
"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Informative)
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.
There is no "retroactive" change (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:So I no longer have to give up my private keys? (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Oops, wrong URL. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I thought it was out already?! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Can they do that? (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Can they do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody: Linux is just the kernel. Linus does not control anything else, and has less than absolute control over that.
Bruce
Re:Retroactively? (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What happened to web apps? (Score:1, Informative)
Hope this helps,
-- Brett Smith, FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Informative)
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:3rd-party Analysis? (Score:3, Informative)
Read it over and over for the next 3 days.
Re:Can they do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, he probably meant draft-2 form. The current form didn't exist when he said that :-) .
Besides, specific objections are more helpful. Like he is against some DRM-related terms. I have gone over some of those terms here [technocrat.net], you might find that useful.
Bruce
Re:3rd-party Analysis? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2108409,00.a
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 unscalable walls between open-source and proprietary software.
Re:Can they do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Good luck. (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html [gnu.org]
Which now I'll have to invest some time in reading.
Re:Sadly... (Score:3, Informative)
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 necessarily be free and lawful ones -- that is up to the individuals involved, just as it is with the non-anarchic societies.)