Slashdot Mirror

The draft isn't yet written,

Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of drafts written, just none that RMS and company are ready to share. It seems like I've seen these articles pop up every 6 to 9 months over the past couple years. (Take a look at the dates on those links.)

I mean, I know some FSF projects move slowly, but at least they make some progress. (Of course, from Hurd's announcement to "It boots!" was 3 years, so they must be rather, uhm, methodical?)

As for this comment: "So if they keep to the same formula, patents and DRM may deprive you of the rights to distribute GPL3 software, but probably not to use it." Maybe, but maybe not. If nothing else, it's not 100% clear to me who the licence affects when it's based on copyright. Namely, does it apply to the person offering the copy, or the person receiving it? If GPL v3 takes aim at DRM and patents, it may restrict you from receiving a copy. (Seems unlikely though... I'm pretty sure copyright focuses on the person offering the copy.)

Sometimes people get confused by the concept how how terms from 2 different licences can apply the the same work product. For an example how something can be distributed "under terms of your choice" and yet have additional terms/restrictions, just look inside the LGPL itself. Search for the phrase "under terms of your choice" and you'll see a specific example illustrating this exact point.

Given this, if someone produces a game based on your library and distributes it with a commercial EULA, it may still be subject to certain clauses of the LGPL dealing with allowing modifications, allowing reverse engineering, etc. Imagine trial versions of commercial software based on your library getting modified by end-users to re-enable disabled features and the vendor being SOL legally because they're required to allow modifications.

If you want to make this a non-issue, you may want to add an extra sentence to exception #2 stating that works that are exempt are not required to be subject to any terms of the LGPL unless desired. An IP attorney should craft the sentence for you.

Also, rather than asking on slashdot, ask the Free Software Foundation (FSF) or an attorney specializing in intellectual property.

I'm pretty confident that the wxWidgets (wxWindows) license was not drafted by an intellectual property attorney so using theirs as a starting point shouldn't preclude asking FSF or an attorney.

Someone at FSF specializing in GPL like David M. Turner might be willing to answer your questions and it could save you some money.

David's contact info:
novalis@novalis.org
http://web.novalis.org/resume.html

When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. [...]

When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. [...]

The parent post is factual and quotes the LGPL. Someone not sharing your opinion doesn't mean they are a troll.

If a commercial program linking to LGPL library by using header files forbids modification of the program in their EULA, then they are not living up to their LGPL obligations. If you bother reading commercial software EULAs, you'd know that virtually all of them prohibit reverse engineering and modifications.

This is a tricky situation because allowing modifications means allowing a user to, for example, enable expensive 'enterprise' features in cheaper 'home' editions of software by patching the binaries.

Read the LGPL. More importantly, understand it and abide by its terms rather than flaming people who try to educate you.

Your ignorance does not justify leeching from LGPL libraries and not living up to your end of the deal.

If you don't believe any of this, then ask a recognized GPL/LGPL expert like David M. Turner of fsf.org. See http://web.novalis.org/resume.html

That's most probably not a typo, but slashcode modifying your text. However, what about just providing a Link? It's as easy as <a href="http://...">Text</a>

1. can think of any ways to really improve on it
2. wants to hastily change it lest they somehow damage its legal watertightness ("if it ain't broke don't fix it").

However, there is now talk of releasing a new version (GNU GPL 3.0) and maybe a first draft of the new version sometime "soon" (in terms of it's slow development cycle--some people are bandying around 2006 as a possible date). There is no draft ATM but possible changes that have been talked about in the past include:

1. an anti-DMCA clause;
2. clarification of the section on granting patent licenses (and better protection against algorithmic patents in general);
3. possibly something about trusted/trecherous computing to stop free software being effectively shackled by that technology;
4. possibly allowing the offer of source code for binaries without source to refer to a URI where it can be downloaded (as opposed to the out-dated snail-mail method);
5. clarification (and possible tightening) of "as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system on which the executable runs..." to close the loophole that people could argue quite a wide defintion of "major components of OS";
6. most significantly, a new clause saying that source code must be available to users who use the software remotely over a network (e.g.: the Internet). [See the relevant official GNU-GPL FAQ and section 2(d) of the Affero GPL (which is very similar to what the FSF are considering for the new GNU-GPL clause).]

See this FSF presentation and NewsFourge's two-part article interviewing RMS for more background--neither recent. Those are the main official sources I could find.

I'm sure a public draft will be released for discussion some time before anything gets finalised.

According to this slide the Affero GPL is a prototype.

The GPL makes it illegal to distribute GPL software that violates patents.

You Sir are quite a poor troll.

The seminar material is freely available on the web.

Now instead of this ridiculous ".name" they should have introduced ".sex" and forced all those sex-companies into that TLD.

Lots of people think that this is a good idea, because they have a very clear idea of what a sex website is. Unfortunately, if you asked ten of these people which websites were sex websites, you would get ten very different clear ideas.

Trojan Condoms?
Go Ask Alice?
Reverse Cowgirl Blog?
My dream log, which occasionally talks about sex, but has not yet described it in detail?
The Bible?
Bible Sex Facts, an evangelical Christian site with explicit discussion of sexual behavior?

Oops, missed a character. Yes, I know it's Dante. I have a (slightly altered) diagram of the Inferno on my wall.