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."
Heads up their asses... (Score:1, Insightful)
Apparently completely neglecting the fact that they have no legal basis on which to do that...
Somebody needs to remind Richard Stallman that Free stands for Freedom. He seems to have forgotten.
3rd-party Analysis? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Retroactively? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't see that in any of TFAs; does anyone have a link?
Why GPL v3? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What happened to web apps? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:There is no "retroactive" change (Score:5, Insightful)
True meaning of :"retroactively" (Score:3, Insightful)
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:What happened to web apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:There is no "retroactive" change (Score:1, Insightful)
Google tracking cookie: provably useful in search engine research, which Google needs to do. Privacy implications; evil rating 2.
Google choosing to do business in a country with inferior laws: Google doesn't control foreign laws, and doesn't have the option to go break them, but perhaps it can still offer a useful service. Evil rating 4.
Microsoft's open warfare on just about the entire PC software industry throughout the '90s: incredible damage to innovation, and no benefits for customers. Evil rating 90.
Apple ignoring geeks and bloggers in the design and pricing of its products: evil rating -2.
Iraq war: evil rating 3 billion.
Adoption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
How h FSF-free changed meaning? (Score:2, Insightful)
What other license looks for the users' freedoms? None. This has not changed. Just YOUR perception of what "FSF-free" means. You thought it meant YOUR freedom with someone else's code. Now you know different.
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sadly... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I thought it was out already?! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Retroactively? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Novell-Microsoft deal really strikes at developer motivation. Why write "free" software if Novell and Microsoft license their own users and go around threatening to sue or actually suing everyone else? Do you want to reward them by writing more code for them to use?
Bruce
Re:What happened to web apps? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Concerns for the GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sadly... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 -- financial, legal or otherwise -- to one person, just because another took your code and did something using it. Where is the infringement of their freedom?
The simple fact is that with GPL'd code, restrictions are imposed by the author on someone else. Now, that is a perfectly valid position to adopt both ethically and legally, but it's not giving something freely, it's giving something with strings attached.
Re:What about the incomprehensible legalese? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you never demonstrated that you aren't beating your wife, and I say you are! Now the burden on you is to prove that you're not. What, you're not married? Prove that, too! I say you're beating the poor woman! :-)
You have the new license draft. Do you see any thing that says you have to give up keys? Show me the language, and tell me why you think it says so.
Sorry, but "Linux said so before he even saw this draft" isn't going to hold much water.
Bruce
Re:I thought it was out already?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that it's actually important to get this right. If there's a bug in the code you released, you simply fix the bug and everything's fine. If there's a big fat loophole in the license you released, you're screwed.
Re:My opinion is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How to Circumvent GPLv3 v1 DRAFT (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
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):
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:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Insightful)
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.