Preview of GPL V3, Part 2

Meltr writes "NewsForge.com has published Part 2 of their GPL V3 preview. It clarifies Part 1, mentions the possibility of GPL V2.1, and discusses the system library exception and the issue of patents." We had covered their initial "sneak preview" a month ago.

Comments

Is this a good time to change the rules?

[richie123]

I agree that there are several issues like patents, and the ASP loophole that need fixing, but should we be considering changing the rules to the GPL just as more business, and users are getting to understand it? Hopefully RMS can avoid making any controvercial changes that whould devide the community ( I remember a few months back reading a article on advgato that advocated barring use of any GPL'd software by anyone suing any free software author over patent infringement, that I found to be a verry bad idea).

Re:Is this a good time to change the rules?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, that (at your option) clause is pretty important because it rules out abuses that tighten the rules. You are suggesting that someone could take over FSF and issue licenses that loosen the current GPL protections. But the GPL says new versions will be similar in spirit to this one, and if they are not, that's a valid challenge to the new license in court.

Thanks

Bruce

Plugging holes

[Sludge]

The GNU General Public License explicitly states that you can take the terms from any previous or future version of the license and use it in the place of the current version, as a user of the code and resulting software. Doesn't this clause make it impossible to plug holes in the GPL?

Here is the clause:

Each version is given a distinguishing 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 eithre 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.

Re:Plugging holes

[Bruce Perens]

The choice of what license version to use is up to the individual copyright holder. Most of them say "version 2 or any later version", but Linus says "version 2", period, and will make his own choice later when he can see the text of a new license, along with the other copyright holders.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Plugging holes

[QuMa]

'Along with the other copyright holders'? Is it really viable to actually reach everybody who's ever contributed kernel code?

I don't think linux will get the 'or v3' clause...

Re:Plugging holes

[Bruce Perens]

Along with the other copyright holders'? Is it really viable to actually reach everybody who's ever contributed kernel code?

No, and that's why you should leave the "any later version" part in place.

Bruce

There is no GPL Version 3 yet, so don't panic

[Bruce Perens]

RMS hasn't even started writing it. He's at the stage of soliciting your opinion. He has made it clear that he's not going to make any changes without an extended community consultation. The sky will not fall, the rules will not change for existing software because you always have the option of applying the present GPL, people will have a choice of what license version to apply to new software. Choice is good.

Thanks

Bruce

GPLv3.ianal ? Anyone?

[Delirium Tremens]

Now that we have a link to the binary form of the new GPL (the Lawyer format), does anybody have a pointer to a clear text form ("ianal" Human-readable format)?

# more GPLv3.ianal
GPLv3.ianal: A file or directory in the path name does not exist.
# ls
GPLv3.txt
# more GPLv3.txt
Can not output: non-printable characters
#

Re:GPL: Ok to use our code to kill. God bless GPL.

[Bruce Perens]

One interesting thing about RMS: he's not a pacifist. Ask him about it sometime.

The Open Source Definition disallows this sort of license clause. Look at the part concerning "fields of endeavor". When I wrote that part in, I was thinking about people who might want to prohibit use of their software by abortion clinics, or by anti-abortion protesters. The Berkeley SPICE software actually prohibited use by the police of South Africa, and that provision remained in the license long after Apartheid had ended. So, I decided that this sort of license provision wasn't really a good idea.

Thanks

Bruce

Huh?

[Enahs]

"The criterion has to be somewhat more general than just allowing libc. But we definitely do not want to permit linking with third-party non-free libraries."

I'm sorry to ask it, but who are "we"? Certainly not I. The GPL is a bit too restrictive for my tastes. Upon a second reading of the LGPL, it may be a violation of the LGPL to release non-libraries under that license.

Sure, mod me down as a troll. I really don't care. I have a differing opinion and should be silenced.

Imagine, if you will, working on a paper for a class. You decide to release this paper under the mythical Free Paper License, so that content providers can use it and so that other students can benefit from your work. So you go to the library and start collecting sources. You start referencing sources. You start quoting sources in your article.

But wait! You're in violation of your license! Wha...? You heard me. The mythical Free Paper License requires all referenced content to be available under the conditions of either the FPL or the LFPL. ;-) So you start reading the copyright information in the books and find references that work. While you find references that work, you find that they aren't all exactly what you need.

What to do then? You start writing a supplementary paper that will be available under the Lesser Free Paper License. Unfortunately, at this point your professor balks, stating that your paper should be dependent only on outside sources, and that he/she won't accept a paper that has extra dependencies. So you try to bribe someone else into writing the LFPL paper for you. No luck. So much for making your paper "Free."

The point of all this? The GPL is too restrictive IMHO. While RMS may see real danger to allowing linking to "non-Free" libraries, I fail to see it. It's no more restrictive than quoting a source in an academic paper that falls under a restrictive licensing/copyright notice.

Re:Huh?

[Bruce Perens]

the point I'm attempting to make is that merely linking shouldn't be covered under the GPL IMHO

It's difficult to not cover linking and maintain the quid-pro-quo. The idea is that I am not giving away my code by GPL-ing it, I am inviting others to use it, and I am inviting other programmers to participate in an exchange with me by giving me the same terms on their code that I am giving them on my code. If you don't cover linking, there's no longer anything that provides incentive for an exchange because the other party doesn't have any obligation to me.

Regarding whether a derived work of a GPL product has to be a library, LGPL section 2(a) in combination with the three paragraphs of section 3 would have a derived work that is not a library not be covered by the LGPL and suggests that the GPL be applied. But given the definition of a library at LGPL section 0, second paragraph, you could make the case that any source-code-available work is a library.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Huh?

[/dev/kev]

I'm sorry to ask it, but who are "we"?

The Free Software Foundation, authors of the GPL.

The GPL is a bit too restrictive for my tastes.

Then don't apply it to your software. Or modify it to suit your tastes. Although a modified version may not be free, or may be incompatible with the GPL. This would mean that you couldn't use GPL'd code in your program ,and others couldn't use your code in their GPL'd programs, unless you were willing to license your code under the GPL.

Upon a second reading of the LGPL, it may be a violation of the LGPL to release non-libraries under that license.

Nonsense. You can apply any license to any work you like. I could write a book and GPL it if I wanted, even though it doesn't make much sense. The GPL defines "Program" as "any program or other work"; the LGPL defines "Library" as "any such software library or work". The "work" can be anything you have copyright of.

But wait! You're in violation of your license! Wha...? You heard me. The mythical Free Paper License requires all referenced content to be available under the conditions of either the FPL or the LFPL.

You can't be in violation of your own copyright license. You can't sue yourself for copyright infringement. The GPL doesn't require that all copies have certain properties, it requires that all people who have obtained the software under the GPL obey certain restrictions. You have not obtained the software under the GPL. In any case, since you're the copyright holder, you could always grant yourself a specific exception. :)

Re:You betcha!

[Bruce Perens]

The GPL works by turning copyright law on its head. The difference between the GPL and the BSD licenses is that GPL licensors participate in an exchange of free software, while BSD licensors effectively give their code away in a similar manner to public domain except that there's attribution. Both licenses have their place.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Strengthening the Linking clause weakens the GP

[Bruce Perens]

But you are confusing API copyrights with a copyrighted implementation of that API that is being linked.

Bruce

Version Three Shenanigans

[Arandir]

I am so glad that RMS is still in the comments gathering stage. Some of the proposals I've seen for GPL are very unfree (in both the FSF and the dictionary sense). These proposals seem to be more about protecting the author's sensibilities rather than eliminating the traditional restrictions normally tied to software.

1) Further restrictions upon linkage. Dynamic and runtime linkage is *using* the software in the manner it was meant to be used. And the freedom to use the software in any way is the FIRST freedom listed by the FSF. It's sensible at times to restrict what libaries an application can link to, because that could co-opt the application and make it unfree. But the reverse is impossible. There is no way to make a libary unfree by using it for an unfree application. No derivative work is being made under copyright law. Nothing is being modified or distributed with additional restrictions. The only thing being hurt is the author's sensibilities.

In RMS' zeal to prevent proprietary authors from using his libraries, he ends up hurting Free Software authors who use non-GPL licenses. The GPLv3 should be looking at ways to include non-GPL but Free Software authors in the community, instead of seeking further ways to exclude them. As it now stands, software in the public domain or under a BSD, MIT or other "copycenter" license cannot use GPLd libraries, such as readline or Qt/Embedded. Some proposals for the GPLv3 would further alienate these freedom loving folk.

Looking at the various dynamic (not static) libraries in existance, the only ones that I know of that dictate the terms of the application's licensing are are small subset of "Free" Software libraries. (there may be some proprietary licenses that do this, I am just not aware of any) Microsoft doesn't care how I license my MFC application. RogueWave doesn't care how I license my Tools++ application. Only the FSF demands I use a specific license for my own original and non-derivative works.

2) New restrictions upon use. That RMS is even contemplating this scares me. By *use* I mean the ASP "loophole". Again, this is another case where the only harm is harm to the author's sensibilities. RMS and the GPLv2 allows me to modify GIMP (as an example) for my own private use. They do not restrict my friends from coming over to my residence and using the modified GIMP on my computer. But the GPLv3 will regulate how my friends can use my modified copy of GIMP if they do so over the internet instead of physically walking to my residence. Where is the logic in this?

There are parts in the GPL v 2 that need cleaning up and clarifying. Please do so. But don't add new unprecedented restrictions. If the only thing being hurt is your sensibilities then leave it out.

Linking? I don't get it.

[Valdrax]

Okay, I'll admit that I apparently don't understand the GPL at all.

Are the following situations illegal under the GPL?

1) I write a GPL'ed application that links to a closed-source, proprietary library, such as Motif, and distribute just my application's source.

2) In updating the code of a commercial, closed-source package at work, I take advantage of a GPL'ed library. I make no changes to the library, and I include the source of the library in the distribution, but due to not wanting to have my company not sue my ass off, I don't include the source to the entire project. The library is not statically linked into the program -- it is installed seperately.

3a) For this same piece of software, I include several shell scripts to do parts of the functionality with customized versions of a few GPL'ed utilities. I include the source for the GPL'ed utilities, but I do not include to source for the larger package that includes and actually invokes these shell scripts to do certain tasks. The shell scripts are not GPL'ed.

3b) The shell scripts are GPL'ed, but the app that calls them still isn't.

4a) I build the closed application with a hacked up version of bison. I include that bison and it's source code, but not the application's.

4b) I do not include that version of bison or its source.

5) My closed-source package talks to a CORBA object that defines a well-known interface. That object is replaced with a GPL'ed version on some user's machine.

If any of these are illegal, then isn't this extremely unfriendly to every known license other than the GPL, including the BSD licenses and public domain licenses?

Question to Bruce or anybody else about the LGPL

[spitzak]

I want to release my library fltk under the LGPL and I do not mind if people use my library to write commercial or closed software, since this ability will make my library more popular, and since the use of my library will make it easier to port to Linux or other platforms. I also know the regular GPL is valuable and release all appliations I write as GPL, but I want to use LGPL here.

The problem is that the exact words of the LGPL seem to require dynamic linking of my library, so that it can be "replaced by the user". This imho is unacceptable, since my library is not popular and thus must be provided with the appliacation. This requires the application to be "installed", which greatly reduces it's ease of use. Perhaps more important: it means a programmer cannot modify my library (releasing the code modifications) and use it in their closed program, since the shared library would conflict with other users of my library, this completely defeats one of the main advantages of Open Source, which is that you can change it!

I have taken to adding a disclaimer that says "static linking of my library is allowed, no matter what the LGPL says, and is in fact even encouraged". But I would like to know if there is any better way, or if the LGPL allows this.

I would prefer not to make my own license just because of this, since we have way too many licenses as is, but this worries me no end...