Slashdot Mirror

These transcripts, and other such documents, are collected at the official GPLv3 wiki, on the Reusable texts page. And there's more info about the draft and how to participate in the public consultation at gplv3.fsf.org.

Supporting the Summer of Code would enable Google to positively impact education in numerous ways. Educating the younger generation is an investment in the world's future, yet it so often seems to fall off the radar of those in charge.

How can Google support education with Free and Open Source Software? By improving apps that make it fun for elementary, junior high and high school students to learn. And how do you make it fun? By intertwining technology and using computers to their full potential as teaching tools. Take the KDE Education Suite for example: it has open source programs that teach Math, Chemistry, Physics, Foreign Languages and many more. Wouldn't it be nice if every third-world child had access to these?

By supporting college students who work on Free Software, Google would be raising awareness of its many advantages, not to mention giving participants the satisfaction that they've authored something that will be used by millions of people throughout the world. The Free Software foundation has compiled a list of testimonials from people at various educational institutions who have benefited greatly from using Free Software. But more importantly, using Free Software in educational settings teaches students about freedom and cooperation. Richard Stallman and FSF Europe have written great essays on this topic, titled:

Why schools should use exclusively free software
Why give precedence to Free Software at school?

Through Free and Open Source software, Google has the power to make the world a smarter place, enabling its people to make intelligent decisions that will affect all of us.

is which version of the the GPL? ;)

This world is going so ass bent sideways and the hackers are the new revolutionaries.... HOLY FUCK every scifi book has just become a reality.

NOTHING in GPLv3 disallows implementing DRM with GPLv3 code.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft
Section 3.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure.

Even If someone wrote DRM in a GPL v3 draft licensed application it wouldn't be legally enforcable as DRM because such an application is explicitly not an "effective technology protection measure".

As for changing the license of the kernel, it would be very difficult. Every single author would have to agree, this is unlikely.

The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.

Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.

Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Complete Corresponding Source Code.

I interpret that to mean that the "authorization code" for the source code is a note in the documentation that says how to run "apt-key add $HOME/mykey.pgp". Everything else (such as root access to the machine) is something that the recipient of the source code would already have.

Linus said

"Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile,"

when the (draft of the) GPLv3 says

"3. Digital Restrictions Management. [...] no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."

As far as I understand, what the GPLv3 says is that as long as RedHat gives you a way to recompile the OS with your own signing keys (or without authentication at all) then they are allowed to distribute GPL software with whatever signature they want.

Where did I miss something ?

It's not that he says that they're incompatible; it's that they are actually illegal to use in conjunction with GPLed code. If you look at the FSF licenses page, you'll see that there are several free software licenses which are not GPL-compatible: they're free, but due to certain provisions they cannot be legally mixed.

It is official -- Netcraft confirms: FSF is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered FSF community when IDC confirmed that the FSF's mindshare has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all computer users. Coming on the heels of a recent announcement from Linus Torvalds, which plainly states that the Linux kernel will NOT be moving to GPLv3, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The FSF is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by founder Richard Stallman's hairstyle and rambling GNU/Everything Communist anti-developers'-rights "I'm-right-and-you're-stupid" commentary.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the FSF's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the FSF faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the FSF because the FSF is dying. Things are looking very bad for the FSF. As many of us are already aware, the FSF continues to lose mindshare. In a recent poll on Slashdot, 97% of computer users preferred Microsoft to the FSF in terms of both ideals and the quality of their flagship products.

The GNU operating system is the most endangered of all the FSF's projects, having lost 93% of its core developers. Unable to convince users to use GNU's own "Hurd" kernel, the FSF has made several desperate attempts to capture mindshare by riding Linux's coattails. The aforementioned sudden (although not unexpected) denouncement of the GPLv3 by Linus Torvalds only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt, the FSF is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

FSF founder RMS states that there are almost 7000 remaining GNU users. How many of those use Emacs? Let's see. Consider the bell-shaped curve of an IQ distribution graph. At best, Emacs users universally score two standard deviations below the mean, which means that they make up approximately 2% of any given sample. Therefore, there are 140 Emacs users left in the world. A recent article showed that GCC usage is declining among truly free operating systems in favor of ICC or even SDCC. There's GNU and Emacs, what else does the FSF produce aside from hot air?

Due to the troubles of the GNU operating system, abysmal adoption rates and so on, the GNU folks gave up on improving their code and instead began to concentrate on marketing their beta-quality OS. Theirs is just another unfinished open source project with a poorly designed interface and a lot of ideological baggage. It's no wonder that more and more businesses are turning to Microsoft.

All major surveys show that the FSF has steadily declined in mindshare. The FSF is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the FSF is to survive at all it will be among juvenile political dilettante dabblers. The FSF continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. People just don't want to hear their message anymore. For all practical purposes, the FSF is dead.

Fact: The FSF is dying

You're not the only person who has made a comment on this and there's no reason to think that this is how the final version of the license will stand. That's the whole purpose of the commenting process.

The issue with Freedom 0 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is that IF I can run any "free" software that I want then I can run it for any purpose.

Yes, but if you actually knew how to think for yourself, chances are you wouldn't want Stallman (or anyone else, for that matter) defining freedom for you. Those of us who *are* capable of using our own brains prefer to reach our own definition. I'm guessing Linus specifically wanted copyleft himself in order to ensure that downstream developers/companies couldn't lock up his work; however I also suspect that he actually would have thought it through. He might have even looked at some of the other licenses in existence at the time (including non-copyleft ones - *horrors!*) before deciding on the GPL. I'm curious...how much do you know about the other OSS licenses that exist?

The other issue is, Linus *wasn't* off the mark with DRM...what he was concerned about was how the term DRM is defined, which is something that the draft does not elaborate very much on. His point was that some of the things which could conceivably be defined as DRM (he gives encryption as one example) can actually be extremely beneficial in some circumstances.

DRM is a war being waged on consumers, developing such systems COSTS money that gets passed on to you but provides NO benefit you YOU as consumer.

Right. That's exactly why what you're defining here as DRM is failing, and will ultimately fail. Capitalist economic theory 101: Corporations ultimately exist for (and profit from) the purpose of meeting public needs. If they don't do that, eventually they cease to exist. I'm not claiming that that happens overnight, and I'm also not claiming that they don't do a hell of a lot of damage in the process, (environmental damage probably being the best example) but eventually it happens. Someone else comes along who not only more efficiently meets the original need, but who also figures out ways of solving the problems that the original corporation created. It's happening to an extent with Linux and Microsoft, even though Linux is not the domain of a single corporation.

Richard Stallman is a Marxist fanatic in the truest and most literal sense of the word. I will agree with anyone who claims that big business causes a lot of problems. Yes, many large corporations *are* run by rapacious moral degenerates, and yes, they can do a tremendous amount of damage, but just because that happens in some or even most cases does not mean it happens in *every* case. The economic system in a contemporary sense also may have metastasized into something undesirable and dangerous, (which does, I concede, now need to at least be partly replaced) but for a long time, and in ways smaller than those which are currently most visible, it has served as a valid and even positive framework for solving human problems.

Stallman sold Emacs tapes himself during the 80s for $1,500 US apiece, and the "Deluxe distribution package," is being sold for $5,000 US. I'm aware that the conventional Marxist justification for this would be to claim to be "using the system in order to bring it down," however a more accurate term for it would simply be rank hypocrisy. He has stated on more than one occasion that he wants to see an end to people being able to earn money from software, and yet he himself has done so in the past, and his foundation currently obviously has no qualms whatsoever about doing so.

I suspect that you, like many of his other followers, simply focus on how wonderful his philosophy looks on the surface, and don't bother digging any deeper than that. For those of us who have been looking, however, the gnu costume has never been able to entirely conceal Stallman's Red underwear.

Read the blog post. The author specifically specifies the GPLv3, and not just "the GPL." The blog title is "Thinking About GPL3..." and he links to a copy of the GPLv3 draft. (Which actually says "THIS IS A DRAFT" right on it, don't know why he linked a copy and not the GPLv3 site, but...)

So, yes - he's talking about using the GPLv3 as opposed to the current GPL.

Which is silly, because the GPLv3 is still in draft form. It's not released. Speculation about how to apply the GPLv3 would make sense, talking about actually releasing something under it is rather early. Unless he intentional means to say "we have no plans on releasing an open source version of Solaris until 2007."

No, it's not. It's a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Or is it that if I also distribute everything needed to remake my secure OS with another private key, I qualify for the requirement ?

That's exactly correct. The current draft contains this sentence:

Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Complete Corresponding Source Code.

The requirement is simply that people you distribute the GPLv3ed software to must be able to actually use that source code. If you give out source code that can't run because you're leaving out some vital part, that violates the GPLv3. They sort of clarify it in the rational behind Section 1 (although that's kinda confusing, IMO).

You have to include everything required for the recipient of the code to actually build a working version of the program (minus system libraries like the C runtime). It's to prevent someone from releasing something under the GPL that just so happens to require a third-party library that's closed, or that can't run without some private encryption key.

As long as it's possible to create a working copy of the program from the data you distribute, you don't have to distribute anything more.

Y'know, guys, they're still looking for feedback on the GPL v3. It's still in beta, unfinished.

So by all means, if you have good ideas, submit them to the FSF :)

Submit GPL v3 comments here.

"Which is why HURD will never see the light of day in any substantial fashion. Philosophy doesn't yield code."

If you simply want to argue over the semantics of whether or not philosophy yields code or people yield code, read no further; I have nothing to say to you. The point of this post realtes to substance, not semantics. (And before you stop reading, ask yourself this: what is philosophy without people?) Your second statement is clearly a generalization you're drawing from your first, and in incorrect one, at that. As GP alluded to, the GNU in GNU/Linux is all the utilities you use on the command line, up to and including the command line itself, and is under the copyright of the FSF. I haven't done recent SLOC counts on GNU vs. Linux, but I would be surprised if they weren't at least comparable - I'd expect that GNU actually has produced substantially more source code (that is used all the time by all manner of users and developers) than the Linux kernel itself these days. Back in 2002, RedHat 7.1 was studied and though the kernel was the largest single body of source (~2.5 million lines), there are GNU programs all over that quickly outstrip the kernel in sheer volume of source: gcc alone is huge (~900k lines), but emacs (~600k lines) and glibc (~600k lines) are both quite large as well. Those are only three GNU programs, the directory of FSF software contains (as an estimate) hundreds, including the Hurd itself.

Indeed, philosophy is a manner of viewing of the world and is expressed not by some abstract theoretical paper you write, but in how you choose to live and contribute your work to others. In this sense, philosophy is very much responsible for yielding code - do you honestly think that without the philosophical buy-in of its contributors, free software would be anything today?

What is that thing about developers having to turn over their private keys? I don't think anything that stupid is even considered for GPLv3.

Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.

Have you even bothered to read the GPLv3? Linus obviously has, you should too; it's public, you know. You can read it right here. It says, right in the second section (labeled 1?):

The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.

Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes

Emphasis mine.

If you develop something under the GPLv3, be prepared to give up your private keys. That's just ridiculous, and it's not surprising that Linus would reject it.

http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/01 /17/1454213&from=rss

DRM clause I guess?

"Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output."

http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft

The GPL 3 draft is clearly inferior in this respect. There's no way I would push that forward as an example to a free software newbie.

I agree, but the purpose of a free licence is to protect the rights of the authors and the users of free software, not to provide an easy example for newbies. Simplicity is of course a good thing, and I'm very glad about GPL v2 on that matter. But technology advances and licences should evolve to cover new important topics such as patents, DRM and software-as-a-service. It's unavoidable to complicate the licence to cover such things.

Also have in mind that, above all, a licence is a legal document, which means that it should be understandable and enforcable in a court of law. For this, it should be very precise and clear. For example, GPLv2 should be summurized as
  "You can do whatever you want with the software as long as it remains free"
This one-line licence would be much better for newbies to understand, but useless in a court.

Given the complicated things it tries to cover, I think GPLv3 is doing a pretty descent job, it's not that complicated if you read it carefully and take a look at the rationale behind the changes.

In all seriousness, though, I just set up a diskless router based on OpenBSD that saves its state to flash using rsync. So these awards are spot-on, at least as far as I am concerned. And on the heels of Samba 4, too. Great work, tridge!

Wasn't there a part where it says that if you distribute binaries for a "Trusted Computing" platform that have to be signed in order to run, you also have to distribute the keys required to sign them?

http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft

The only reference to anything like a key is in Section 6. Non-source Distribution:
"Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying."

Which just means the source distribution itself can't be encrypted in a way that the user can't open. I see nothing that says the recipient needs to be able to sign the code for use on a specific system that requires it.

And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it.

I don't see anything in the draft that would require Linus to release his private signing keys. That would be insane if it were true, but it isn't.

The clarification on the licensing of the kernel (GPL v2 only and ever) is useful, though.

First, a quick point about GPL v2: You can't make effective DRM software with it. How could you? Since GPL grants users the rights to gain the source code and to modify it, then as soon as you distribute your DRM app you have given the user the right to modify that app so that, after decrypting whatever it is that the program is designed to decrypt it writes it to disk in a non-protected format. They could modify it so that whatever keys it uses to decrypt the media are also written to disk.

The only way you could prevent this is if your country has a law that would trump the permission-to-modify-and-use-for-any-purpose provisions of the GPL v2. Specifically we're talking the DMCA. Since your DRM software is a "protection measure", bypassing it is illegal, and thus modifying the software to write out un-restricted files would be illegal even though the license you got the software under gave you explicit permission to do this and more. This is where GPL v3 comes in:

From http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft: "No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data."

I understand that the term "effective technological protection measure" is to specifically address the DMCA, which makes it illegal to bypass said measures. It's basically stating that no GPL v3 software can ever invoke those clauses of the DMCA.

Which is moot for several reasons. First, there will never be DRM software released under any GPL license at all since they'd have to be nuts to give out the source code and rely on DMCA enforcement to protect the content, especially since the DMCA is U.S.-only. Second, because the DMCA is U.S.-only, this clause is only effective in the U.S. to begin with.

The other clause in the same section, which references spyware as "works that illegally invade users' privacy" is similarly useless because "illegal" varies from country to country and if it was illegal then you could get them for that illegal act and don't need to resort to copyright infringement to stop them.

I think the entire Section 3 of the draft license could be removed and not change the resulting impact of the license one iota.

Nobody who actually takes the time to read any of the FSF's introductory material (e.g. the GPL's preamble, or The GNU Manifesto, or their "What is Free Software?" article) will have any confusion about the issue. The people who are confused are those who pass judgement on things without spending more than 250 milliseconds thinking about them.

Hell, the first thing you see when you visit the FSF's website is the following sentence:

Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of "free" as in "free speech".

If the FSF is trying to spread confusion, they're not doing a very good job of it.

This was actually awarded ages ago (OK, more like a week ago) at the GPLv3 launch. I happened to be sitting one row in front of where he was sitting when they called him up (which was kinda neat, I guess). I never did get to see what the actual award was there because the thing was rolled up, and he never unrolled. So it's nice to see the picture on the website.

I'll have to check to see if I have any pictures of the award ceremony. I think I might have one of him actually holding the thing. However I haven't gotten around to dumping my camera yet, so I'm not sure.

They should also be announcing (any day now) the winner of the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, which was also awarded at the GPLv3 launch. If I had been paying closer attention, I could tell you if it was Wikimedia that won, or Wikipedia. I think I also have pictures of that award being accepted.

There seems to be good information on wireless cards at http://networkned.co.uk/hardware.php, which references the FSF list https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/net/wireless/card s.html.

Your best bets are to keep an eye on these sites

http://www.ffii.org/ (especially)
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.eff.org/

They usually have links where you can join them and help them in any way they need it.

by Richard M. Stallman rms@gnu.org To the Management of the Boston Public Library, Don Saklad forwarded me your message which reports that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright protection technology" made by Microsoft. The technology in question is an example of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology designed to restrict the public. Describing it as "copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a mechanism intended to deny the public the exercise of those rights which copyright law has not yet denied them. The use of that format for distributing books is not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be changed, and that is the case here. I respectfully submit that the Boston Public Library has a responsibility to refuse to distribute anything in this format, even if it seems "convenient" to some in the short term. By making the choice to use this format, the Boston Public Library gives additional power to a corporation already twice convicted of unfair competition. This choice excludes more than just Macintosh users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an operating system made up of free/libre software, are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are locked up with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), it is illegal in the US to release free/libre software capable of reading these audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of arrangement to include capable software in MacOS (which is, itself, non-free software for which users cannot get source code). But we in the free software community will never be allowed to provide software to play them, unless laws are changed. There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts. I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management. Sincerely Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation MacArthur Fellow cc: John Sullivan for posting on http://fsf.org General Reference gref@bpl.org This is a follow-up message to our response to your recommendation that the Library's digital audio book collection be accessible to Mac users. OverDrive Audio Books use copyright protection technology from Microsoft Corporation. Unfortunately the iPod (and Mac) do not currently support copyright-protected Windows Media Audio (WMA) files. OverDrive, along with hundreds of online music and audio book providers, is hopeful that Apple and Microsoft can reach an agreement that would enable support for Microsoft-based copyright-protected materials on the iPod/Mac. We are hopeful too - and in the mean time, we will keep looking for a vendor that will serve a broader audience. There is a workaround, however, that allows you to upload OverDrive content to an iPod, provided your computer is a PC, you have a CD recordable drive, and the title may be burned to a CD. If you would like to try this, follow the instructions in the OverDrive Media Console to burn the downloaded files to CD. Then, rip the CD into iTunes for synchronization with your iPod. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you very much. Sincerely, General Reference Department Boston Public Library 700 Boylston St Boston MA 02116 Phone: 617 859-2270 We thank you for your suggestion. We are forwarding your message to the staff members working on the OverDrive Audio Book and OverDrive eMusic program. Thank you very much. Sincerely, General Reference Department Boston Public Library 700 Boylston St Boston MA 02116 Phone: 617 859-2270 -----Original Message----- Please make http://overdrive.bpl.org available to mac users !

by Richard M. Stallman rms@gnu.org To the Management of the Boston Public Library, Don Saklad forwarded me your message which reports that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright protection technology" made by Microsoft. The technology in question is an example of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology designed to restrict the public. Describing it as "copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a mechanism intended to deny the public the exercise of those rights which copyright law has not yet denied them. The use of that format for distributing books is not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be changed, and that is the case here. I respectfully submit that the Boston Public Library has a responsibility to refuse to distribute anything in this format, even if it seems "convenient" to some in the short term. By making the choice to use this format, the Boston Public Library gives additional power to a corporation already twice convicted of unfair competition. This choice excludes more than just Macintosh users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an operating system made up of free/libre software, are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are locked up with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), it is illegal in the US to release free/libre software capable of reading these audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of arrangement to include capable software in MacOS (which is, itself, non-free software for which users cannot get source code). But we in the free software community will never be allowed to provide software to play them, unless laws are changed. There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts. I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management. Sincerely Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation MacArthur Fellow cc: John Sullivan for posting on http://fsf.org General Reference gref@bpl.org This is a follow-up message to our response to your recommendation that the Library's digital audio book collection be accessible to Mac users. OverDrive Audio Books use copyright protection technology from Microsoft Corporation. Unfortunately the iPod (and Mac) do not currently support copyright-protected Windows Media Audio (WMA) files. OverDrive, along with hundreds of online music and audio book providers, is hopeful that Apple and Microsoft can reach an agreement that would enable support for Microsoft-based copyright-protected materials on the iPod/Mac. We are hopeful too - and in the mean time, we will keep looking for a vendor that will serve a broader audience. There is a workaround, however, that allows you to upload OverDrive content to an iPod, provided your computer is a PC, you have a CD recordable drive, and the title may be burned to a CD. If you would like to try this, follow the instructions in the OverDrive Media Console to burn the downloaded files to CD. Then, rip the CD into iTunes for synchronization with your iPod. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you very much. Sincerely, General Reference Department Boston Public Library 700 Boylston St Boston MA 02116 Phone: 617 859-2270 We thank you for your suggestion. We are forwarding your message to the staff members working on the OverDrive Audio Book and OverDrive eMusic program. Thank you very much. Sincerely, General Reference Department Boston Public Library 700 Boylston St Boston MA 02116 Phone: 617 859-2270 -----Original Message----- Please make http://overdrive.bpl.org/ available to mac users !

Do you mean the FSF's GPL Compliance Lab, or, maybe, the non-FSF Free Software Law Centre?

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

I don't remember seeing any example of anyone being punished for it. Are there any such examples?

GPLv3 is not perfect and it has many warts, so bad that I would go Linus' way (pure v2) at this moment, but the DRM clause is one of its stronger upsides.

The GPLv3 isn't finalized. The Slashdot blurbs haven't really made this clear, but the current version is a draft. It's allowed to have warts. If you have issues with it, comment on them! The GPLv3 is still a draft. Changes can happen. Get involved. Be heard. It's an open process.

GPLv3 is not perfect and it has many warts, so bad that I would go Linus' way (pure v2) at this moment, but the DRM clause is one of its stronger upsides.

The GPLv3 isn't finalized. The Slashdot blurbs haven't really made this clear, but the current version is a draft. It's allowed to have warts. If you have issues with it, comment on them! The GPLv3 is still a draft. Changes can happen. Get involved. Be heard. It's an open process.

That said, I'm not sure this is a good idea. What they're saying is that there is absolutely, positively no good use for DRM, and there never will be, in free software.

Actually, this came up at the GPLv3 conference. The example used was Tripwire. The general concept was that you'd sign all the binaries on your system, and then set up the kernel to only run signed binaries. If something tried to change a binary, than the signature would fail, and the program wouldn't run.

It's unclear whether or not that would really be disallowed under the GPLv3, but it was at least brought up.

It's worth mentioning, because Slashdot hasn't really made it clear, that the GPLv3 is not finalized yet. People who have issues with it are strongly encouraged to post comments on it and get involved with the process. The GPLv3 is currently scheduled to be finalized between November 2006 and February 2007 - the current GPLv3 is a draft, and changes can and most likely will be made to it.

The GPL isn't, actually, a "play nice" style license as such - the entire concept is that it "guarentees freedom," trying to balance the freedoms of both the creator and the user. The Free Software Foundation is about the "right to tinker" (Stallman's words at the GPLv3 release), and that includes the right to tinker with a program's data files.

Stallman is, essentially, an idealist. He wants to save the world - and he seems to honestly believe that allowing DRM to exist would destroy free software. So he's taken a hard-line stance against DRM in the GPLv3.

It's sort of explained in the rational behind Section 3, which I'm just going to quote outright since it's so short:

DRM is fundamentally in conflict with the freedoms of users that the GPL is designed to safeguard, but our ability to oppose DRM by means of free software licenses is limited. In section 3 we provide developers with some forms of leverage that they can use against DRM. The first paragraph essentially directs courts to interpret the GPL in light of a policy of discouraging and impeding DRM and other technical restrictions on users' freedoms and illegal invasions of users' privacy. This provides copyright holders and other GPL licensors with means to take action against activities contrary to users' freedom, if governments fail to act.

The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program does. Ill-advised legislation in the United States and other countries has prohibited circumvention of such technological measures. If a covered work is distributed as part of a system for generating or accessing certain data, the effect of this paragraph is to prevent someone from claiming that some other GPL'd program that accesses the same data is an illegal circumvention.

Sorry, I typed an incomplete link. Here is the link what I wanted to show, and how MIT/BSD are not as beneficial as you might think.

Under subsection 7d, the added part may require the program to contain functioning facilities that allow users to obtain copies of the program's Complete Corresponding Source Code. This is intended to enable compatibility with licensing terms that, for example, require modified versions of a program that interacts with users through a network to preserve an opportunity for users to request network transmission of the source code.

because somehow stallman and friends have managed to convince themselves that software licenses - legal documents - are an appropriate place for extended polemics and lectures on philosophy. folks saying "it's hard to read because it's for lawyers" are missing the point. licenses don't have to be hard to read. there's plenty of examples. the GPL rewrite is an ego stroking project for those leading it. they've very nearly said as much: read this, particularly the section about the four purposes of the GPLv3. it starts out well - "The GPL is a Worldwide Copyright License" - but deteriorates rapidly. a "Code of Conduct"? the "Constitution of the Free Software Movement"? WTF? that's kinda grandiose, no, Mr. Stallman? and then it comes together with the final one: "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman".

licenses don't have to be hard. Stallman has decided his should be literature instead. he's decided it should explicitly discuss his principles and philosophy, rather than be a legal reflection of the same. and i guess he's doing a good job of showing those principles, actually: a disregard for elegance, love of needless complexity, failure to modularize, and deference to form over function.

I actually went to the GPLv3 launch, where they went over the license and what the intention of each of the clauses were. (And almost fell asleep, but...)

In order to make the license more "compatible" with other licenses, they added Section 7. Section 7 is a set of additional restrictions that developers may add to the license to ensure they maintain compatibility with other licenses. Section 7d essentially says that you may, optionally, implement a feature that causes a program to distribute its own source code to the end-user. If you decide to do so, you can add a requirement that the feature not be removed. This is optional - the default GPLv3 doesn't include this.

If this draft is accepted, it looks like I'll be using GPLv2 (and v2 only) from now on.

The GPLv3 is still a draft - if you have issues with the license, comment on it! Join the process! The GPLv3 is an open source process (free process?) in and of itself. This is just the first draft, if you have problems with it, get involved and try to get them worked out.

it has a few clauses that are ambiguous

Why dont you go to the comments page, highlight the ambiguous bits or bits you don't like, press c, and explain this (possibly giving better/clearer wording).

if I compile my code with GCC and link with a GNU library, my code will not fall under the GNU license unlese I sat it does.

It doesn't say that at all. It says that if you have to redistribute source with a binary because it's under the GPL, you don't have to redistribute everything that was used to make that binary if those listed conditions are met. For example, IF your code is derived from GPL code, or is otherwise redistributable under the GNU GPL, one doesn't have to redistribute GCC and the GNU C Library to satisfy the GPL: they would only have to redistribute the code in question, and not any "sub units" that are used to make it up.

That said, if it's your code it's your decision whether it's GPL or not (or maybe your employer's decision). If your code is actually derived from someone elses' code that GPL then your code is automatically redistributable under the GPL.

GCC has things like __builtin_apply that are GCC-specific. Ordinarily using these things would constitute a dependancy on GCC. This is why GCC has a special exception in its copying-terms. If this exception did not exist and you used __builtin_apply then you would have to redistribute GCC as well.

A better (more realistic) example is if your code links with libbinio which IS under the GNU GPL v2. Your code would be derived from it, and thus your code would be redistributable under the GNU GPL, but if libbinio is "ordinarily available" you wouldn't have to redistribute libbinio as well, and could simply refer people to it.

The FSF have provided a document explaining the rationale behind the changes in each section of the license.

Before blindly criticizing the wording of a certain section, I suggest reading the rationale behind the changes.

- Does the text in the License do what they intended it to do?
- Do you agree or disagree with what they intended?
- Are the possibly-bad side effects of the text which aren't mentioned in the rationale?

One individual stated about the release: 'It is changes in law, not computer technology, that pose the principal challenges to the free software community. Chief among these changes has been the unwise and ill-considered application of patent law to software. Software patents threaten every free software project, just as they threaten proprietary software and custom software. Any program can be destroyed or crippled by a software patent belonging to someone who has no other connection to the program.'"

NICE HACK JOB, NJAN. That entire paragraph is copied verbatim from Section 1.2 of the FSF rationale page.

You don't think the FSF lawyers (including Eben Moglen) considered that question before publishing the draft?

Besides, if you don't think it'll hold up, submit a comment

I can't wait to try it out! But are there any binaries to download? I can only seem to find the source code, and I don't have a compiler for Lawyer++.

"That is not even neccesarily true. Someone made the claim that linking obligates you to GPL you code as part of FUD scare campaign."

Well, when the "someone" that claims that "linking obligates you to GPL" is the legal arm of the very one that wrote down the license, maybe there is an issue.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violatio n.html/view?searchterm=violations

The FSF administers the copyrights for a whole host of GNU software, a large portion of any GNU/Linux distribution. There is likely GNU software in the GP2X. The FSF has a Free Software Licensing and Compliance Lab that seems to be set up to help resolve the issue described.