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."
Re:Sadly... (Score:4, Interesting)
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. ;-)
Reaction to GPLv3 (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Quick issues (Score:4, Interesting)
* 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.
Re:Reaction to GPLv3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Freedom Means People Do Things You Don't Like (Score:2, Interesting)
Real freedom is allowing people to use free software for good or ill.
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Interesting)
It's based on the principle: we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.
Bruce
Re:What happened to web apps? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 GPL code in their product without releasing their own code. Hell, Google is probably doing this as we speak. (I know you probably don't care about Google violating the spirit of GPL, but the Microsoft scenario should convince you that this should be fixed.)
Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How to Circumvent GPLv3 v1 DRAFT (Score:3, Interesting)
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 they have made no copies, and having not made any copies, have no obligations under the GPL. Thus, the end user can't get the source from either the distributor nor the original party.
Re:how disingenuous of you (Score:3, Interesting)
And how often we see people defending it writing under the label of Anonymous Coward. Truly lends credibility to the idea that the FSF are worth defending, doesn't it?
As for how the other definition keeps changing; it doesn't. My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:-
THAT is free software. NOT copyleft. Other than the conditions on inclusion of the notice, the above is also met in every point by the BSD license, which is why I support it, and why I have never at a gut level supported the GPL.
Stallman's redefinition of the word "free" is a classic tactic straight out of the cult leadership playbook...it's called "introducing loaded language." It refers to the practice of taking common words from the English language and redefining them in such a way that, for people inside the cult, the word begins to mean something very different to its' definition in the minds of the general population.
GPL is well meaning DRM for source code (Score:3, Interesting)
At the risk of sounding inflammatory, GPL is, in fact, source code DRM. If you want to use GPL licensed source you have to sign up to rules much as you have to sign up to rules when you but a tune from Apple. Again, I acknowledge that these are noble and generally positive rules but any rules implicitly impinge on freedom.
]{
Re:Good luck. (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't really consider Sun as wanting to be a sincere partner in the Free Software community, due to their starting out by making incompatible licenses. I think they figured that out now. And Jonathan doesn't say stupid stuff about us all the time any longer. So, I am waiting for them to drop the CDDL, since even they seem to think it's a dead-end now. So it might be moot whether it's free or not.
Bruce
Re:Good luck. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bruce