GPL to be Modified to Penalize Patents and DRM

null etc. writes "MSNBC is running an article about how upcoming changes to the GPL will retaliate against companies that patent software or produce DRM'ed products. "Software patents are clearly a menace to society and innovation. We like this to be more explicit. The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software. It's like a patent retaliation clause.""

Comments

Taxation?

[nokilli]

From the article:

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the kind of freedom being espoused here necessitate doing away with WiFi? I mean, how can you tax the connection if it's available to anyone, anonymously, at any time?

I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.
--
You didn't know.

Re:Taxation?

[Phil246]

They'd just tax the access point. Somewhere, all WiFi signals need a line to the rest of the internet.

Re:Taxation?

[Elf-friend]

...to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism.

Specifically, it smacks of communism (which is just great, given that we've been trying to counter the "free software is communistic" argument for years). Oh well, like others have said, I'll wait for a better source than MSNBC before I start running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

Re:Taxation?

[toad3k]

Why should a company be able to lock out open source in the name of profit and still benefit from its use?

I think it is a big step too, but maybe it is necessary.

Re:Taxation?

[Captain Scurvy]

I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism.

Precisely. While I would not be opposed to this change in the GPL per se (I do find the ideology behind it a bit on the aggressive side), I completely disagree with the suggestion that a general 'taxation' on Internet connections could support innovation. It seems to me like such a thing would stagnate innovation rather than encourage it.

Re:Taxation?

[KDR_11k]

we've been trying to counter the "free software is communistic" argument for years

Why? Isn't it exactly that, communism? I mean, where's the problem with that?

Re:Taxation?

[ebyrob]

Oh well, like others have said, I'll wait for a better source than MSNBC before I start running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

More specifically, it's probably a good idea to wait for an actual draft to come out rather than harping on rumors about what Stallman *might* write. The GPL governs redistribution, not use. As long as this remains true, I have trouble seeing how the license can become too terribly honerous.

Worst case scenario, you can have your customers download GPL'ed stuff themselves, much like various Java VM's and tools require.

Re:Taxation?

[mwg_stpaul]

A good question, but posing it reveals the flexibility of the definition of freedom.

Take "free trade". Free trade is taken (by its supporters, and I am one) as being inherently good. That is, the freedom part doesn't have to be reciprocal for a benefit to accrue.

Does the FOSS community believe that, or is this more about punishment (as the question seems to imply)? To put it another way, do you value the concept of freedom more than you dislike those who "freeload" on your work? Either choice is perfectly valid. I'd just ask you to consider what advances the cause of FOSS more.

Re:Taxation?

[Desert Raven]

adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

Ah yes, the "everyone should pay for my stuff" theory.

What about the very large number of people who *don't* download music? The small amount of music I buy, I prefer to have uncorrupted, on physical media.

I really don't see why I should be paying for other people's recreation, and I especially don't see why my money should be going to *crap* musicians/bands, since there's no question that money would be going to the big labels, not the independents.

Re:Taxation?

[110010001000]

And now you have found out what a mess the Free Software supporters have found themselves in. The true agenda has been revealed. Lets just make everything "free" and just tax everyone to support the system.

This should put to rest those "Free and in Beer vs. Free as in Free" comments. It is obvious that the true agenda is to ruin the commercial software industry. Software engineers should be concerned with this, because frequently it is the sale of commercial software that is paying their salaries.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha! Years now I've been saying that the GPL is just a tool to advance the Leftists political agenda, and getting modded Troll.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly legit to deny licenses to anybody who holds a software patent, or refuses to make said patents available gratis. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that in BSD. I would really rather see software patents not granted as a matter of policy, but the USPTO is too big a cash cow for that to happen.

Re:Taxation?

[FireFury03]

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the kind of freedom being espoused here necessitate doing away with WiFi? I mean, how can you tax the connection if it's available to anyone, anonymously, at any time?

This is the bit that's got me worried too - seems to go against the ideals of the FSF. Why should I be forced to pay an artist through taxation if I think their work truely sucks? Especially since I prefer my music on physical media so I buy the CDs anyway (after downloading the tracks to see if they're any good). Doesn't sound like freedom to me. Infact it sounds like the varous parts of the world who charge a "copyright tax" on blank media just incase you're going to use it to infringe copyright (even though in my case pretty much all the blank CDs I buy are used for backups of my own data).

Re:Taxation?

[SpaceLifeForm]

You should not make that assumption.

The 'rest of the internet' may not be useful down the road.

Re:Taxation?

[coldmist]

It's also the classic "guilty until proven innocent". From what I remember, in Germany, any CD-R disk you buy has a tax on it that goes to the local music cartel (for redistribution to the artists, right).

With this, you are assumed guilty of "enjoying" copyrighted entertainment and are taxed as such, whether you do or not.

It sets a very ugly precedence.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

To US citizens, it's a pretty stigmatized word due to how it was presented to them last century. None of them actually know what it means, just that it is very "un-american".

Re:Taxation?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Good question.

See MS. See why they love the BSD license but absolutely hate GPL.

Re:Taxation?

[arose]

The small amount of music I buy, I prefer to have uncorrupted, on physical media.

Good news, the GPL will certainly not deal with taxation of internet connections, however it might deal with DRM.

Re:Taxation?

[Swamii]

Oh well, like others have said, I'll wait for a better source than MSNBC before I start running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

Except, the quotes are direct quotes from the EU Free Software President. And besides, Microsoft sold the off its stake in MSNBC. Also, you'll notice the register has the story as well.

Re:Taxation?

[tchernobog]

C'mon, boys, it's from MSNBC! And Greve declared:

The Free Software Foundation says it is mulling over plans to introduce some kind of patent retaliation clause into the next version of Richard Stallman's General Public Licence.

The clause would seek to restrict the distribution and use of free software to parties prepared to forgo patent infringement lawsuits against free software developers.

[..]

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software".

Quite different story, then. Please, ./ editors, don't be too eager to flame everyone and eveything. At least, report both sides' declarations.

Re:Taxation?

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.

I agree with the parent. A general tax on Internet use would not be fair to the artist or to the casual Internet user who chooses not to download music (legally or illegally). Also, it would eliminate any feedback from the market that would otherwise direct the most money to the best artists.

An alternative system, which does not depend on government involvement and which could be implemented right away, would be for "consumer groups" or "fan clubs" (for lack of a better name) to charge membership dues in exchange for exclusive perks. The money collected would go to support artists with interests similar to the group's focus, with the agreement that the music would become available to everyone (public domain / Creative Commons / ...) upon release. The membership benefits could include a more personal connection with the artists, concert ticket giveaways, priority access to high-quality recordings, etc. Essentially, it would be an adaptation of the patronage system to a more democratic form, with the fans as the patrons. One could think of it as a P2P patronage system.

As for movies, the theatres could always try selling advance tickets to pay for new productions. Theatres cannot survive without movies to show, after all. By raising the money beforehand, they would ensure their revenue even if the movie was later spread all over the Internet, or shown in other theatres. Of course, the theatres would have to work together to pay for the development of something as expensive as a movie.

PS: I also suspect that (some) people would still pay good money to see the movie in a proper theatre, even if they had easy access to a decent, free copy, just for the "theatre experience".

Re:Taxation?

[Swamii]

Well said. The GPL is hardly usable as it is, with the forcing of the releasing of source code, which may contain commercial trade secrets. An addition that prevents all DRM'd software and all patented software from using the GPL would just push it over the edge as a political statement with an agenda, more than a software license.

Re:Taxation?

[James_Aguilar]

Besides that we have few historical examples of Communism working and many of it not, there's no problem at all.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

typical american that doesn't understand the distinction between a mixed, regulated economy and communism and capitalism.

even though he lives in a mixed economy already...

Re:Taxation?

[HiThere]

Well, for one thing various governments have given communism quite a bad name. People tend to equate it with totalitarianism.

As to whether "free software is communistic", that depend entirely on your definition of a couple of undefined words.

OTOH: (Dealing with my semantic quibbles...) Well, free has a few legitimate definitions...but the only really "free" software is public domain, or possibly any software that you don't charge for is free, depending on the definition selected. That isn't what the free in FOSS means, as the BSD license is the free-est license accepted by the OSI [I think, I haven't checked that they don't accept public domain without disclaimers]. GPL certainly isn't absolutist in it's "Free as in freedom" stance, as it imposes some limitations on one who wants to re-distribute it.

But I haven't seen an operational definition of communism that would fit both the "communist" government of Stalin and the FOSS community. There really isn't much similarity at all, and those who claim there is are generally astroturfers...or just enamored with throwing the term "communism" around without much regard for any meaning it might (possibly...as I said I don't have a good operational definition) have. (P.S.: They may be pro- or anti- communist. There are individuals on both sides who like to throw the term around.)

Re:Taxation?

[Tony Hoyle]

The GPL *is* a political statement.. has been for some time.

It's just that a lot of developers buy into it. I did myself for a long time.

There are plenty of other licenses - use them instead if you're not into the politics.

Re:Taxation?

[geomon]

Haha! Years now I've been saying that the GPL is just a tool to advance the Leftists political agenda,...

Well, you've gone and blown it now. Posting as AC we have no way to verify that you have been "saying" anything for years. Or minutes, or seconds.

I would really rather see software patents not granted as a matter of policy, but the USPTO is too big a cash cow for that to happen.

Exactly the kind of leftist political rant I would expect to hear from Stallman.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

eww... not to mention that if you left entertainment production up to be funded by taxation, every special interest group in the country would want to control exactly WHAT is being produced by those dollars... not that it's not close to that today, but it would completely kill "independant media"...

Re:Taxation?

[Haeleth]

Specifically, it smacks of communism

Really? To me, it smacks of capitalism. Why? Well, most capitalist countries have taxes on blank media now, specifically to "pay artists" for the IP that it is assumed you will use those CD-Rs to copy. Yet nobody accuses the RIAA of communism!

Re:Taxation?

[alext]

More specifically still, I think you'll find it smacks of the Stalin's pre-war purges organised by the 22nd party congress as part of the 3rd Five Year Plan.

We have organized a similar police state in the UK to help fund the BBC.

--
Gentleman, scholar, acrobat.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I saw something about the next version of the GPL focusing more on use than past versions have.

Re:Taxation?

[goldspider]

"Well, most capitalist countries have taxes on blank media now, specifically to "pay artists" for the IP that it is assumed you will use those CD-Rs to copy."

Just because a law exists in a capitalistic country doesn't mean it supports capitalism. In fact, taxation is the exact opposite of pure capitalism.

I believe what you're talking about is "corporate welfare"; hardly a concept grown of the free market.

Re:Taxation?

[alext]

Which, statistically, you can be assumed to do, right?

Re:Taxation?

[Peter La Casse]

OTOH: (Dealing with my semantic quibbles...) Well, free has a few legitimate definitions...but the only really "free" software is public domain, or possibly any software that you don't charge for is free, depending on the definition selected. That isn't what the free in FOSS means, as the BSD license is the free-est license accepted by the OSI [I think, I haven't checked that they don't accept public domain without disclaimers]. GPL certainly isn't absolutist in it's "Free as in freedom" stance, as it imposes some limitations on one who wants to re-distribute it.

The law where I live prohibits me from selling myself into slavery. Does this make me more free or less free?

How one answers that question should reveal one's opinion about whether BSD style licenses or GPL style licenses are 'more free'.

Re:Taxation?

[trg83]

I disagree. If GPL v. 3 is based on this concept, the free software movement will closely resemble communism, or at least communism as it is actually practiced. All licensees are equal, but some are more equal than others. Ring any bells?

Re:Taxation?

[alext]

Is FOSS stagnating now then?

Or are you saying that if developers get it into their heads that they might be rewarded for their FOSS efforts this will act as a deterrent?

Re:Taxation?

[alext]

Buying physical media is the old "commodity" model.

Nothing wrong with that, but this discussion is about funding content that is not commoditized.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

So everyone finally gets to see some of Stallman's dystopian future? Of course, the Internet Tax (IT) would have to be progressive. People in the US would pay more than people in Namibia. The IT would have a access capability weighting, so 56Kbps would cost less than DSL, less than Cable, less than 100BaseT.

A penalty clause. So he is playing right into Microsoft's pocket? Wow! The GPL really is viral. Those BSD geeks had it right all along.

How churlish. What a turd.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF most?
By most capitalist counties I guess your referring to the already socialist leaning Canada cause that's the only that I know of that past such a law.
And further any distribution of wealth through taxes is the EXACT opposite of capitalism and is pure socialism.
God your a moron.

Re:Taxation?

[Cosine Jeremiah]

I think this is a very interesting question, and I pondered it for a few minutes...

I decided that I am more free if I can choose to contract myself into slavery. Such laws preventing it are attempting to protect people that are easily coerced into such contracts. In a perfect justice system, such coerced agreements are null anyway--you cannot be a party to a contract if you are placed under duress in order to get you to agree to the terms (in theory anyway).

The software playing field is no different.

Re:Taxation?

[FireFury03]

Nothing wrong with that, but this discussion is about funding content that is not commoditized.

My point was that, given that I want to buy a CD with music on it and I do _not_ want to buy downloadable music from the internet, why should I by forced to pay a tax for this material I don't want?

If the only use for the internet were to download music then a tax _may_ be fair, but forcing people who use the internet to pay for music they may not be downloading is akin to forcing people who drink water to pay a fruit juice manufacturer, just incase they happen to be adding fruit juice to the water.

Put in a context that's more familiar to Slashdot, what if you were forced to pay Microsoft money when you bought a blank PC, just incase you were going to put Windows on it?

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

See MS. See MS try proprietary networking. See MS fail in light of BSD licensed TCP/IP. See MS adopt TCP/IP, very likely using the BSD implementation itself. See every OS on earth support TCP/IP. See the Internet actually work for once.

BSD is perfect for open standards, when the political environment is intolerant of 'embrace and extend'. For example, the WWW was not started on Windows, and, for MS to take advantage of that trend, they had no choice but to adopt an open standard and play nicely.

To this day, Windows supports TCP/IP. I'd bet Longhorn will, too.

If TCP/IP were originally GPL, then the Internet and WWW of today would be a mess. There would still be a fragmented Internet, as the effort of creating a full-featured compliant and reliable TCP/IP implementation isn't trivial. Different companies would have come up with slightly different results and there would be tons more problems, today. Just look at UNIX interoperability outside of TCP/IP...it just isn't seamless at all.

Re:Taxation?

[Cosine Jeremiah]

Well, for one thing various governments have given communism quite a bad name. People tend to equate it with totalitarianism.

This is because communism implies some level of totalitarianism, and totalitarianism implies some level of communism. The difference is only in why they behave as they do.

Communism starts with wanting everyone to be equals and manages that by making everything public owned. This means those that want to do something that is not publicly owned, or even publicly approved, must be smacked down in a totalitarian manner.

Totalitarianism starts with the government being a control freak that wants its fingers in everything. Thus everything you do economically needs government approval, and you end up with companies run identically as they would under a communistic regime, to the point that all companies must run equally bureaucratically as to be indistinguishable from each other in terms of real choice for their customers.

Not directly related to the topic on hand, read Paul Graham's latest essay "Inequality and Risk" for some nifty insights: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html

Re:Taxation?

[alext]

Sure. But given how you want to participate in the market you're going to be in a minority, and if it turned out that it's a real small minority then I guess there's a risk it could be unfair to you.

I'm in a similar boat here in the UK as I'm one of the 1% who do not have a TV. Currently this means I don't have to pay $180 p.a. for a license, but I use the BBC web site and radio services, and might use view program content online when they make it available, so I guess I wouldn't gripe too much about paying the license if they changed the rules and decoupled it from physical TVs.

The alternate evil is that the community is policed to ensure that only those who have paid get to share, but then we're back to DRM again.

So the least worst option is for a tax, as long as it is small (relative to average total spent on content), fair (discount for little old ladies) and democratic (likely to have stuff you want as well as what other people want). An official MS tax (as opposed to the unofficial one) would fail at least one of those criteria.

Re:Taxation?

[lynx_user_abroad]

Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce?

The suggestion (a 'connection' tax to reimburse artists) is not well thought-out. I'd go so far as to say it's dangerous to the GPL itself.

One of the few classes of 'authors and artists' who are not granted full control of their work through copyright law are musicians. Their control is subordinated through a compulsory license, whereby anyone who pays this 'compulsory fee' is free to use their creations in limited ways, even against their wishes.

A 'connection tax to reimburse artists' would quickly morph into a compulsory license for all types of digital content on the Internet, including graphic images, web pages, java applets, and finally code.

At that point, licensing restrictions like those in the GPL would have no legal backing: copyright law (on which the strength of the GPL is dependent) offers no control to a copyright holder once a compulsory license comes into effect. A certain company in Redmond would be as free to use Free Software as anyone else, once they've paid the compulsory license. Of course the reverse would also be true: you'd be free (having paid the mandatory 'connection tax' to redistribute copies of (DRM-protected, and therefore useless without a seperate license key) Windows and DRM-protected movie files all you want, and the copyright holders will only thank you for reducing their distribution costs.

That someone from the Free Software Foundation Europe would even suggest this gives me the shivvers. Any creation which becomes covered by a compulsory license is beyond help from something like the GPL, because the GPL depends on the control copyright law grants to the author.

I recommend we all think very carefully before buying into any plan which takes control away from the creators in exchange for payment. Free software is not a payment game, and the moment it becomes one is the moment it dies.

Re:Taxation?

[badriram]

MS still has investments in MSNBC. They only sold slate.

Re:Taxation?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Got some news for ya, bud. A trade secret is a secret, and all secrets require dutiful work to maintain them. Using public software (under things like the GPL) is NOT an act of secrecy. These are fundamentally incompatible ... kind of like the mismatch between demanding pay for your services or products, or offering them for free via volunteering.

The GPL is hardly usable for the class of people who like to keep secrets. Strangely enough, they can still keep their secrets. But if they want to use the property of another, they have to abide by the terms of the property owner. So it all boils down to people wanting the things that they summarily deny to others. And that's not particularly politics -- that's culture.

In the world of the Hypercapitalist:

"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.

Thankfully, we out-number these sociopaths.

I really enjoy the idea of the trade-secret crowd salivating over OSS. After all, it's all about property rights, and that crowd of shitbags is allgedly 110% behind the idea of property rights, correct? Or are they all about stealing all the commonwealth for themselves while the rest of us starve and labor like slaves? Yes, I think that it's the latter case, too.

The GPL is perfectly usable tool for those who want to protect their property rights. PERIOD. So what's good for the goose is now good for the gander. Too bad for the capitalist thieves, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Property rights are not exclusive to corporations.

Re:Taxation?

[markandrew]

films != software wifi != software just because you can get access to something by using software, does not make that thing software. ditching royalties for music and films in favour of taxation on connectivity is, IMO, stupid. on the one hand, you can pay for what you're using, or on the other, you can charge everyone who uses a service for something some (many) of those people will never use. I don't download music or films - why the hell should I subsidise those who do!? just because piracy exists doesn't mean that *everyone* should pay for pirated music. the fundamental problem leading to piracy is not that it's possible to copy and distribute it (which has always been true); the problem is that music is usually overpriced.

Re:Taxation?

[kryten_nl]

We have organized a similar police state in the UK to help fund the BBC.

Have you received any death treats from Ann Robinson yet?

Re:Taxation?

[jav1231]

Yeah, that bothers me too. We continue to respond to people who see OSS as quasi-socialism and try to explain that it's not. Then some goober comes up with this kind of taxation plan? "Yeah, we'll all put a quarter in a can on the dashboard of the VW Bus that takes us to the web, Man! Its communal! Utopiatic! Peace!
This is fscking rediculous! We don't need DRM and we sure as hell don't need taxation to mitigate it!

Re:Taxation?

[FireFury03]

I'm in a similar boat here in the UK as I'm one of the 1% who do not have a TV. Currently this means I don't have to pay $180 p.a. for a license, but I use the BBC web site and radio services, and might use view program content online when they make it available, so I guess I wouldn't gripe too much about paying the license if they changed the rules and decoupled it from physical TVs.

I'm also in the UK... My view on the licence fee is that it might be a good idea in theory but it's poorly targetted. As you say, the BBC website and radio stations are available to anyone, even people who don't have a TV (so don't pay the licence) and they take a sizable chunk of the BBC's funds so why should they be funded purely by TV watchers.

I think I probably do watch the beeb more than I used to - I like stuff like Rough Science and the Ray Mears programs, and I certainly see a place for them - the point of the licence fee is to let them put on minority shows that commercial stations wouldn't show (that's not to say the minority programs should be unpopular - they should be popular shows that commercial channels wouldn't touch because they can get higher ratings from other stuff. The thing that annoys me is that the BBC seem to chase ratings as much as a commercial channel, spending my licence fee on rubbish like Eastenders, Fame Acadamy, etc - i.e. exactly the same as a commercial channel would run!

That said, I haven't seen a decent single piece of comedy come out of the BBC since Red Dwarf, and that's a real shame. (Don't get me started about cringeworthy stuff like The Office - it's not funny).

The alternate evil is that the community is policed to ensure that only those who have paid get to share, but then we're back to DRM again.

I'm not at all convinced that such policing is necessary. It is my experience that most people will buy stuff for a _reasonable price_ rather than getting stuff from, what is essentially a black market. A lot of the indepentent studies show that people who infringe copyright on music by downloading from P2P networks actually spend _more_ money on legal music than people who don't download. If for one don't buy CDs these days unless I've downloaded a few tracks to see how good it is. And then because I'm not taking a chance on buying a crap CD I'm more likely to buy more of them - the only people who are losing out here are the artists that release a couple of good singles to get people interested and then fill the rest of their album with rubbish.

So the least worst option is for a tax, as long as it is small (relative to average total spent on content)

Hold on, the original idea was to fund the content _entirely_ from the tax, so the tax _is_ the total spent on content.

I'm afraid I believe in freedom of choice - at the moment if I can't afford to buy a CD I won't buy a CD. With taxation I'm essentially forced to regularly buy that CD. Nolonger do I have the option of choosing to go without some fun stuff for a while so that I can afford a holiday, new car, whatever.

Re:Taxation?

[blibbler]

There are so many things wrong with taxing the internet it is hard to find somewhere to start.

1. How do you assess payment? Should it be a flat fee where my grandmother who just uses the internet to check her email pays as much as someone who downloads 100GB/month of movies and music? Should it be a variable fee, so someone is charged for downloading a 2.5GB linux distribution is charged more than someone who downloads 1GB of mp3s? Not to mention a GB of MP3s gives you a lot more music than a GB of AVIs gives you video. Will you have to pay extra if you choose to purchase music from an online store like the TMBG music store? It is pretty clear that you can't just look at what kind of data is being transferred as people will just use technologies that obscure the data being transmitted.
2. How do you determine who gets paid? Should it just go to the Industry Associations? Should it go to the artists? How about unsigned artists who have some music on their website, or groups like Starship Exeter?
3. How do you apportion the money? 8 years ago, virtually nobody was swapping video, now it is as common as music. What will people be exchanging next?

It seems a lot more complicated, and potentially a lot less fair than a DRM system where people pay for what they wish to buy.

Re:Taxation?

[shadowpuppy]

The quote in the summary seems to be wrong. The article actually says...

The idea is that if someone uses software patents against free software, that company or person loses the right to distribute that particular program and use it in their product, he added.

Which changes the meaning.

Re:Taxation?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

From the article:

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

Horrible idea. Here's why: To start to suckle on the tit of government, all you have to do is crank out a few crap songs or albums, then sign up for your cut.

If you think farm subsidies to not grow vegetables, and cyber-squatters and porn popups and link redirectors are bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Re:Taxation?

[dfghjk]

totalitarianism is the OSF way. You haven't been paying attention.

Re:Taxation?

[shmlco]

Ah yes, the "if you really like us send us some money" model... which never worked for shareware.

Think about it. I've downloaded quite a few artist's songs from itunes, but I'm probably only a "fan" of three or four, and doubt that there's even one I'd support to the level you suggest where advance recordings or whatnot would seem worth the price.

But as is, I did pay for everyone's music. We simply need more distributors like itunes or magatune where less money goes to the "label", and more to the artist, with a net reduction in distribution fees (and price) as a result. Done correctly and fairly ON BOTH SIDES, there's nothing wrong with paid content and copyright.

Re:Taxation?

[Swamii]

As I recall, it was posted on Slashdot some time ago, before the Slate sell-off, that Microsoft ditched its investments in MSNBC. There's an older article here that mentions it. I believe the sell-off has already occurred, or at least is underway.

Re:Taxation?

[Swamii]

If the GPL was neutral, a company would be able to use free software, provide the source for ONLY that free software component, keeping the rest of its software secret. But because the GPL is viral, causing all source code referencing the GPL'd component to be public, the GPL is simply not usuable in most corporate environments.

Re:Taxation?

[Tim C]

I really enjoy the idea of the trade-secret crowd salivating over OSS.

Yes, I can see how that would appeal to someone like you. Sorry to break it to you though, we tend to find something we like the look of, check the licence, see that for whatever reason we can't use it in this instance, shrug, and move on.

After all, it's all about property rights, and that crowd of shitbags is allgedly 110% behind the idea of property rights, correct? Or are they all about stealing all the commonwealth for themselves while the rest of us starve and labor like slaves?

Ad hominem? Please - come back when you've grown up enough to engage in a civilised debate.

Property rights are not exclusive to corporations.

Agreed - but by the same token, they are not exclusive to individuals. Even if they are, those corporations are all made up of individuals, and each of them can own property rights. If you want us shitbag commercial programmers to respect your rights, then you dirty beatniks have to respect ours - a little less name calling would be a good place to start. Deal?

Re:Taxation?

[Khyber]

And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce?

I create movies on slight occasion, and I certainly do not spend millions of dollars doing so. $400 bucks for computer parts to build a decent system, about $2,500 for a good digital camcorder, and maybe a few hundred dollars worth of DVD-R discs (I don't sell for any real profit, just to cover costs of equipment, etc.)

Granted I don't do loads of special effects or use massive props or make really serious movies, so I don't necessarily incur those millions of dollars in costs.

Re:Taxation?

[Captain Scurvy]

Is FOSS stagnating now then? Or are you saying that if developers get it into their heads that they might be rewarded for their FOSS efforts this will act as a deterrent?

I am saying neither. I take issue with one suggestion in particular, which is to provide the "rewards to developers" you mentioned through a general "Internet connection tax." This would place those "rewards" in the hands of a homogenous power structure, a scenario that (according to the observations of economists such as Hayek and Friedman) most usually leads to stagnation.

Re:Taxation?

[alext]

I think your monetarist fixation is showing. You might try broadening your reading a little, or taking a look at ODSL or the BBC for some ideas on how FOSS content is developed now.

Re:Taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I wonder if their goal is to make open source TOTALLY irrelevant? If so, it seems they are on the right track.

Maybe next they can ban people from using OSS if they leave the toilet seat up, or drink from the milk carton.

Re:Taxation?

[jnf]

i often argue and ponder such things, and you have added another argument to my aresonal. My two favorites prior to this were:
most of us believe slavery to be incorrect, however at the time of its implementation in the US, it was the norm, and the people of the country wanted it. So then what is a politician to do, what is correct? or what the people want?
The other one deals with situations like israel/palestine and england/n. ireland, where most everyone living on the land has lived there about as long as the rest of the people there, and therefore they both have valid claim to the land (i have as much claim to the US as a native american, both of our lineages have been here long enough to validly call it home)
and now, the more or less free as a result of not being able to sell myself into slavery.
thanks.

Re:Taxation?

[HiThere]

Clearly you are more free is you are allowed to sell yourself into slavery. You are also more free is you are allowed to break contracts just because you feel differently today than you did yesterday.

Do you feel that a maximal amount of freedom is desireable? I prefer the GPL license, which I acknowledge to be less free than the BSD license.

Re:Taxation?

[HiThere]

I notice that you still haven't defined the terms.

I can point to several 18th century religious communes that were, by any reasonable criteria that I know of, communist. They also weren't totalitarian (though the [temporarily] successful ones did have a strong charismatic leader). But I can't be certain that they would fit what YOU mean when you say "communist". The term is quite loosely defined. If you said "Leninist" rather than communist, you would have a much clearer definition that fits what I'm guessing you intend. (Marxist doesn't work for two reasons:
1) his systems are incapable of being implemented on even a test basis
2) the meaning of the term has been corrupted away from his writings to such an extent that it's nearly as ill-defined as communist)

Re:Taxation?

[amliebsch]

I decided that I am more free if I can choose to contract myself into slavery.

Indeed, I don't see anything that would stop you from doing that. The 13th Amendment prohibits "slavery," which I take to mean the actual ownership of other human beings. However, if you want to voluntarily place yourself in the servitude of another, you can go ahead and do that.

Re:Taxation?

[Captain Scurvy]

I am assuming that you are referring to the fact that open source development is (partially) supported by taxation. Notice that I did not say "taxation in general," but was instead referring to a much more centralized system: "artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections."

Open source development is fueled by a diverse range of "systems of reward," (monetary, commercial, personal, etc.) and this is part of what keeps it afloat. If artists/developers are to be "rewarded" (monetarily) through such centralized means as an "Internet connection tax," the question inevitably arises: "Who decides where the money goes?"

Being so centralized, it becomes a target for those who would seek to control such things. It is often said that "power corrupts," but what is more accurate is that "power attracts the corrupt." If this position of authority was siezed by someone with an interest in perpetuating his/her own interests, it would cause development to stagnate and become more homogenous.

This is why diversity is preferred in almost all scenarios; diversity can "check" the growth of other systems so that no one system has too much control.

Monetary compensation is not the only motivation for developing open source software, to be sure. However, it could not have become the juggernaut that it is today without commercial/monetary support. More to the point, it would not be what it is without such a diverse range of participants seeking a diverse range of rewards.

Re:Taxation?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Oh, stop, I'm squirtin' tears here!

Providing source for a "software component" is useless since you cannot make changes and then recompile. The GPL aims to make a suite of software "components" changeable and then runnable in whatever they're embedded in. The viral nature is necessary.

Corporate environments can still choose to avoid OSS. But badmouthing the GPL is pointless. It's all about property rights, and if you don't like the rights, then write your own. OOPS! -- that takes development money. Hmm! I smell corporate motivation.

So perhaps you were full of bullshit after all. Corporate America is creeping up on OSS for precisely that reason (remember the Hypercapitalist definition I gave?), and there are going to be some significant court battles over property rights.

Re:Taxation?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

[...] we tend to find something we like the look of, check the licence, see that for whatever reason we can't use it in this instance, shrug, and move on.

EXACTLY! You're honoring the property rights of others like you want your own property right honored! Good boy!

Ad hominem?

That must be Latin for "the truth hurts". I noted that you avoided addressing the truth. Keep pretending nothing's wrong, chump, and one day a rifle bullet will bring some of that reality back to you. You can run a society when most things are owned by the least numbers of people whose only ownership authorization is a lousy piece of paper in some vault in a downtown courthouse.

If you want us shitbag commercial programmers to respect your rights, then you dirty beatniks have to respect ours - a little less name calling would be a good place to start. Deal?

You aren't making a deal here since I've done nothing wrong (yes, even when I gleefully wipe your commercial crap off my HDD and replace it with OSS crap). It's your corporate culture that's trembling on the brink of doing things wrong.

If you want to be labelled a shitbag like your bosses, then that's either your honesty or your mistake.

Your corporate masters are almost uniformly uncaught financial criminals, and we are down to the choices of either jailing them under the law or shooting them to death outside it. It's long since time for you to choose, bunky.

And grow a fucking thicker skin, asshole. It's not about my opinion or my words; property rights are the law. The first time you grab some OSS software and make use of it outside the license like a dirty little capitalist scum, you're going to face prosecution. You'll find even the elitist shibags on the bench are STILL caught by the definitions of property rights. You can try to schmooze up to them by calling people like me dirty beatnik hippie Democrat pinkos, but the facts will be clearly against you.

Use OSS outside the license terms, and you'll end up in court. THAT works as well as when I dare to resell copyrighted works. What's good for the goose is damn well going to be good for the gander. Heck, even better: a scumbag copying XP in his basement is almost undetectable, but when TimC's Software, Inc. does it, it's ass-fucking time in court. Kind of like economy of scale, eh?

But it is amusing watching the corporate twits like you twist upon the hook of legality. I just love it. You yuppie shitheels think you own the world, and then your own legal system rips your asses apart in a spray of blood when you cross all kinds of lines in all your perverted arrogance.

I hear ya momma callin' ya, boy. Time to write another suckwad app for her and rip off the consumer for another hundred bucks. Har har! It's hard to compete with free! HAW HAW!

Re:Taxation?

[Elf-friend]

Yeah, but quotes can be muffed (and not just taken out of context, either). I know MS isn't as involved in the network now, but I still don't trust the quality of their reporting (compared to CNN or even CNBC). I hadn't seen El Reg yet today, as I read /. first. Their story seems a bit different, tough.

Re:Taxation?

[Elf-friend]

Very true. I highly doubt that RMS will do anything rash here. If he does, it just means some people will either put up with minor inconveniences, or switch to BSDL or some such instead. It's not the end of the world. Frankly, I think Greve kind of put his foot in his mouth (or had it inserted for him by dimwitted reporters: take your pick).

Re:Taxation?

[ebyrob]

Wouldn't this violate the espoused goals of the FSF?

From gnu.org:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Re:Taxation?

[kesuki]

No, you just shift the burden of taxation on wi-fi to the 'head' point it's true, then the person providing the 'free wifi' ends up paying the tax for you, instead of the person downloading the music, etc.. it is kinda a pie in the sky kinda pipe dream, le'ts say for the argument they made some sort fo law like that, then 'everyone' with a PC can become both a 'musician' and an 'author' even if you some how 'monitor' the popularity of various downloads, to pro-rate compensation, then someone clever can take advantage of free shells or exploits or open proxies to 'download' there 'own' music tens of thousands of times just to get a paycheck.

meanwhile you make broadband internet too expensive, etc etc.. you may as well legislate an 'interstate network' tax, to fund the federal government building a public infrastructure to provide high speed networking capapbilities to the masses... or simply paying exsiting network owners a subsidy to lower prices etc.

the problem is quite simply that computer software doesn't need patents at all. And these people who are arguing leftist philosphies aren't bringing home the point that Software Patents make it impossible for anyone to make software unless they pay tithe to the Patent Owner rulers. who dictate what 'fair market price' for software is going to be. Is that fair? does joh Q. constonction company pay tithe to some dude sitting on the patent for 90 degree offset wall studs? Because that's what software patents amount to. remember the whole controversy over DDR RAM and the fact that one company owned a Patent on the quantum efect of sending data at both the rise and the fall of a clock cycle? A patent on a quantum effect! wowo i'm gonna go patent a method for viewing yellow frequency light through an organic nerve receptor. and everyone who can see the collor yellow is gonna have to Pay me for the the right to see the collor yellow. fuck patents, copyright is ALL the protection software companies need to 'protect' there products from competition patents are all about giving control to the big boys, so everyone has to play by there rules.

Would you look at what patent payments have done to to the comemrcial software industry? prices keep going up, because you need to keep checking the patents to see if you can code a certain way, oh no you can't need to find a 'new' way to do it, that is less efficient, perhaps... lets patent the second best way fast boys so we can still produce software... that's exactly what today's comemrcial software industry is about. if you're going to be a major player it's about patenting the most efficient way to do things first. Otherwise you need to pay rents to the 'landlord' of the most efficient method. if they're so kind as to lease that method out to you...

Patents are bad, for EVERYONE except the king who holds the patents. Copyright itself is fine, copyright is more than enough protection, it protects you from having your trade secrets stolen etc. but patents take things way out of proportion and make the holder of the patents the 'king' of the hill. anyone who doesn't have enough money to make patents that are allow them to do the same things without having to pay patent fees is screwed by software patents.

copyright is more than enough protection for software, the reason the big boys like microsoft ar paying $$$ to political parties around the world to get software patents on the books is because as long as they hold the patents, they set the price of software, for everyone, everywhere.. because just as you can't make a hosue without wall studs, you can't make commercial software without permission of the patent holders. even free software will someday become illegal, because they have to change how they do things everytime they violate a patent, so to simply keep free software off the market all you have to do is calculate as many possible ways of doing things as you can and patent them all. eventually open source software has no viable options to create a working system that doesn't vio

"free"

[BurntNickel]

It's not very free then is it?

Re:"free"

[qw(name)]

Free as in "free to move about in shackles".

Re:"free"

[sunset]

Agreed. No way would I put any open source contribution of mine under such a license. I'm no fan of software patents either, but that battle needs to be fought on another field.

FUD

[robyannetta]

Is anyone looking at the source of this FUD? 'MS'NBC

Re:FUD

[Jeff Hornby]

If you look a little harder, you'll notice that the source is Reuters (that's Reuters not 'MS'Reuters).

Not to mention that the ultimate source for the article is the FSF.

OMG, the FSF is spreading FUD against free software. What will we do?!?

Re:FUD

[DeepRedux]

MSNBC is not the actual source. They are just redistributing a Reuters article out of Amseterdam. Other sites reprinting the article here.

Re:FUD

[LurkerXXX]

MSNBC isn't the original source and it isn't FUD.

Unfortunately, this sounds very similar to the Apache 2.0 license.

Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[eno2001]

This is the GPL that SHOULD be tried in court. It's about time that a stop is put to the abuse of the patent system by greedy corporations. They don't have right to profit. It's a privelege and one they should have lost long ago.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[presroi]

You are repeating an old urban legend.

GPL was already tried in court and it won. Welte v. Fortinet and some other.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[pete6677]

Did you just say that all corporations should lose their privilege to make money?

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[eno2001]

Shut up hippy. Just because you couldn't hack it in the corporate world doesn't mean you should try to build systems to make them fail. You are the one that failed. I assume your still living in your parent's basement. Right? Well, here's how it works:

1. You clean up
2. You get a job
3. You prove your worth to your employer
4. You work your way up to CEO
5. You live happily ever after

That's just the way it is. That's what my grandfather did and it's why I haven't had to deal with the things you do. Sorry your grandfather was a failure and probably your grandfather too. It's time for you to buck up and break the cycle. Everyone has the ability to make it. Just make sure you work really hard and make all possible sacrifices for your employer and you should eventually make it. It's all up to you.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[LocalH]

No, he said that they don't have a right to profit. They have a right to try to profit, but there is no conceivable way that someone could give corporations a right to profit without running counter to basic human freedoms and property rights.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[Jeff Hornby]

Ummmm.....

Did anybody notice that this poster and the article he's replying to are THE SAME PERSON.

What the hell kind of troll is this?

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[eno2001]

Don't pay attention to him. He obviously doesn't have a clue about how capitalism works. All his hand wringing here and elsewhere on Slashdot about how capitalism is failing is just pure FUD. The fact is that he hates to see good people win. All of this kind of "level the playing field" talk is just a poorly concealed attempt to try and get people to agree to communism. The less attention paid to him the better.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, look... a troll hiding behind the words "hard work".

Of course, it would've worked better if you had left out the bits about "you couldn't hack it... you failed" and "[making] all possible sacrifices for your employer". But you're probably a complete n00b with no trolling skills. You probably need something to eat, so I'll go ahead and feed you.

Here's how it works (by the way, this replaces your pathetically inaccurate list):

1. You clean up
2. You get a job
3. Your employer destroys the best years of your life with lots of stress and not enough pay
4. You die

A corrollary to this is if you're a friend or relative to a wealthy businessman, in which case your list looks like this:

1. You get a job
2. You waste time and money doing nothing but playing golf with friends and relatives of other wealthy businessmen
3. You get the title of CEO handed to you by your friend or relative
4. You live happily ever after

The very reason the GPL was even invented was because of this tightly-clustered social grouping that holds all the money and power. And right now, the GPL is doing almost nothing to prevent them from tightening that circle further. This change to the GPL won't do anything to stop it either, IMHO, but time will tell. Anything to even the playing field is a good thing.

And before you go off on a rant and call me a "hippy" (use your spelling checker, retard. this isn't fuckin' IRC), I'd like to point out that I'm not a big fan of the GPL. I think it limits freedoms just as much as any other EULA, but in different areas. The best way to make something completely free is to place it in the public domain, and outspokenly so. Don't hide a comment on line 347 of your code saying "// oh, by the way, this is all public domain code". Put it right out there where the EULA would be. "THIS PROGRAM IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN." Doing that to as much (good) code as is GPL'ed would cause a huge upset in the balance of power and would possibly crush some asshat corporations in the tumble.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[dgatwood]

Sorry, but that case was settled out of court. The GPL did not win. It won a preliminary injunction, which is NOT the same thing and is NOT legally binding even within the same jurisdiction. The possibility that the GPL side would win was enough to convince the company to fix their process.

Let us know when a GPL case actually makes it through to a judgement.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[njcoder]

"Did anybody notice that this poster and the article he's replying to are THE SAME PERSON."

Stop being such an elitist prick... the slashdot, hell the internet in general, should not discriminate against schizophrenics. :)

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[squiggleslash]

Speaking for myself, I don't think all corporations should lose their privileges to make money, unless what they're doing is clearly hurting others. One way to hurt others is to claim ownership of ideas, and sue others for having the same ideas. That's what patents are, in essense, a way of getting in first and saying "I thought of it before you therefore I should own the whole thing".

You can compare it to a car, in many ways. Imagine the GPL as the engine of the vehicle, and a programmer as the steering wheel. Now, imagine you drive your car a certain route, at, say, 44mph, while a bus coming in the other direction from 20 miles away is travelling at 60mph (the speed limit is 45mph, obviously.) If the bus driver, despite taking a completely different route, gets there first, should he have the right to fine you for arriving at the same place? It's unfair just as it is before you factor in the fact that the guy not only tried to own the idea of getting to the place you went to, but actually broke the law, endangering other road travellers and even his own passengers, in the process.

With patents, we're forced to ride the bus, no matter how incompetently it's driven and despite the fact that it's only supplied in a form unusable to us (being, as it is, driven from a location 20mph away), because the driver managed to get to the location we wanted to go to first. Why shouldn't we be able to drive our cars, safely, to the same destination? Especially if we never knew about the bus driver's route there in the first place?

Now, with what's being proposed, the GPL would essentially punish the bus driver for trying to monopolise something that's both necessary and trivial. The bus driver would be unable to drive his own car, because in order to do so, he'd have use a steering wheel (hire a programmer) to turn the car and use an engine (the GPL), and the GPL would forbid him from doing so, and even if he tried, the programmer would refuse, as a matter of principle and legality, to disobey the GPL in that way. Ultimately, he'd be forced to walk home every day, or drive his bus home which would cost him a fortune, and in time would be unable to profit from his "discovery".

To be in favour of patents is to be in favour of maniacs driving at 60mph in 45mph zones forcing us to be their passengers if we want to go where we want to go. That's not right.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that he hates to see good people win

Good people like Darl McBride and Jeff Bezos, right?

All of this kind of "level the playing field" talk is just a poorly concealed attempt to try and get people to agree to communism.

All this kind of "let corporations compete in a free market as individuals with almost all of the same rights and very few penalties" talk is just a poorly concealed attempt to return to feudalism, where the strong (and lucky, and children of same) rule the weak by precident and ownership of everything in sight.

Very few people think that "winning" at life involves complete control of as much stuff as one can get. That sort of viral wealth expansion is the same expansion silly neocons fear free software will achieve with new licensing terms. Perhaps they're right, the world *is* ruled by the strong, and the weak generally just follow along. I for one welcome overlords who care more about the free exchange of ideas than corporate profits and shareholder opinion.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[lcsjk]

I don't have a job so I fish all day.

1. I.ll clean up

2. I.ll get a job

3. I.ll prove my worth to my employer

4. I.ll work my way up to CEO

5. I.ll make lots of money so I can retire and fish all day.

No, wait!! I already fish all day! Grandpa was no dummy!

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[eno2001]

That's right Jim! A lot of people might call foul on the whole thing, but that's really the way it is and I've never seen a clearer illustration of that than this. If anyone has any better analogies, they can go ahead and search the world over, but I guaran-damn-tee you that they won't be finding much of anything unless they open their eyes and find what's right in front of them. The problem is that a lot of people don't like acknowledging the truth even when it's beating them over the head with the proverbial steam iron. What you've stated hear puts the points on the table cleanly and concisely and leaves little room for argument because there really isn't one to argue. And afterall, bus driving and coding is the toy department of life!

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[Richard Dick Head]

Actually, I doubt it is a troll, it looks like an attempt at brassonry.


PS: From this day forward, I declare the word "irony" dead, since, ironically, no one is capable of fathoming the true meaning of a word everyone uses mistakenly. So, brassonry is what irony was assumed to mean >=]

_So commandeth Lord Dick Head The Great [weenie]_

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[FireFury03]

The fact is that he hates to see good people win.

Much of the time it's actually the bad people who win. Does your large corporation need to break the law? A few big payoffs in the right places should get people looking the other way - you're not telling me those are _good_ people winning there?

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[AeiwiMaster]

Well.

The patent system was put inplace so that the evil forces could contain and control human knowledge and inventions.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[lbmouse]

Much of the time it's actually the bad people who win

That is like saying most people are evil or thieves. Psychologists suggest that people that think this way, often reflect it from their own personality. ;)

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like somebody forgot to check the 'Post Anonymously' box.

A bold one

[Metteyya]

That one is bold. And is not a good idea IMHO. Almost every company today uses GPLed software, also those with software patents (e.g. Nokia, Motorola). Making it illegal for them will only make GPL enforcement harder.

Re:A bold one

[ploss]

On the contrary, I believe the absence of software patents is a good thing. It insures that any GPL'ed code will be completely free of any patent BS, making adoption by corporations more likely, since they don't have to worry about frivolous lawsuits from what should already be Free software. End users should know exactly what they are getting when software is unter the GPL.

Remember, there are always alternative licenses for those that have patents. The GPL is not the end all be all (or whatever.)

Re:A bold one

[etymxris]

Let's wait and see. These are indeed some bold statements, but I don't see that they would fly in the face of critical review. FSF has many different people in its ranks with different views. Certainly most FSF members may agree that software patents are a bad idea. But I doubt most would support revoking GPL rights to any company that has a software patent. Without the actual new GPL in front of me, it's difficult to say, but I think they will take a more directed approach. That is, using software patents to stifle GPL development revokes rights to other GPL products.

Again, we'll just have to wait and see how radical these proposals really are. Right now it's mostly speculation.

Re:A bold one

[Total_Wimp]

And it will make widespread adoption of GPLed software impossible. Picture a world in wich Linux could not be used by the Fortune 500. What are they going to do, stop using patents or not adopt Linux? It's simple, GPLed software, just like any other non-licensed or non-licensable software, would be banned from the company.

If you don't have adoption by the big boys, then you don't have adoption, period. Even Microsoft has both a Mac and Linux department. If you remove their ability to load Linux then you remove their incentive even to attempt interoperability.

If this is adopted as stated (dobtful since it wasn't very specific) either the GPL version that includes these clauses will die, or GPLed software will die. Personally, I hope for the former.

TW

Re:A bold one

[LurkerXXX]

Far more important, doesn't IBM have software patents? Making Linux unusable by it's largest corporate sponsor is kinda... stupid.

Re:A bold one

[KDR_11k]

TFA says it's only added to the "no anti-GPL action" clause. The GPL already has a clause that revokes your license if you try to go against the GPL in court, now they're adding one for doing that with patents.

Re:A bold one

[I confirm I'm not a]

Making it illegal for them [to use GPL'd software] will only make GPL enforcement harder.

OK, my understanding of GPL3 is as uninformed as the next man's (and, I believe ,MSN), but what's currently being talked about *is*not* making it illegal to use GPL3 software if you hold software patents - rather, it appears that the FSF are *talking* about a clause that would kick in if a company attempted to enforce their patents. In other words, IBM == OK, SCO == no way. I'm basing this belief on Georg Greve's comments to El Reg that he's been misquoted in the press.

Disclaimer: it's possible I've misunderstood you, the original article, El Reg, and even my thought processes. YMMV. It's late, and I want to go home).

Re:A bold one

[maxpublic]

Picture a world in wich Linux could not be used by the Fortune 500.

Picture a world where Linus Torvalds would be fucking stupid enough to adopt this bullshit. Can't? Yep, it'd only happen in a Twilight Zone episode.

Linux ain't going GPL 3.0 if this is how it's being designed, and I'm willing to bet 99% of open source won't employ it either (discounting all the unfinished projects on SourceForge, of course). Only a few fanatics will adopt the license, and we can just ignore them - as all fanatics should be ignored.

Max

Re:A bold one

[bullitB]

This is more typical FSF bullshit. They've spent the last decade bitching about Apache license clauses against software patents, now they're doing the same.

GPL incompatibility should be considered a feature of software licenses. The FSF stranglehold on open source development needs to end.

Re:A bold one

[fbjon]

So they can have patents, but not patents that go against the GPL? Can there be patents that aren't against the GPL?

Re:A bold one

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Only a few fanatics will adopt the license, and we can just ignore them - as all fanatics should be ignored.

Than we would all do well to simply ignore RMS, who is clearly a "fanatic", eh?

Re:A bold one

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have adoption by the big boys, then you don't have adoption, period. Even Microsoft has both a Mac and Linux department. If you remove their ability to load Linux then you remove their incentive even to attempt interoperability.

Can someone explain to me why mass adoption of GPL software is so important?

Back in 94 I was running a small isp on linux, forcing down the prices on big isps in the neighborhood because my costs were lower...and linux didn't have corporation adoption then.

Why not just keep linux and all the other gpl software for small businesses, non-profit organizations and development groups and do what we should have done long ago: tell corporations to go fsck themselves?

I thought open source was about quality, portable software...not world domination. Am I wrong?

Re:A bold one

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, don't you get tired of being a complete assh0le?

Re:A bold one

[mre5565]

Far more important, doesn't IBM have software patents? Making Linux unusable by it's largest corporate sponsor is kinda... stupid.

Making the GPL so that the corporate sponsors cannot file software patents and re-assign them to the FSF or the public domain is really stupid.

Software patents (as stupid as they are) are the law of the land. Several places I've worked at file them as a defensive measure, not as a way to extract royalties from competitors.

GPL 3.0 is not going to change the fact that there are companies out there filing obvious patents and extracting revenue from legitimate businesses. It is only going to make it easier for the parasites.

Re:A bold one

[xiaomonkey]

There seems to be alot of comments on how this is a bad move on the part of the Free Software Foundation.

However, it seems that this is just a way to update the GPL for the times and completely consistent with its original goals. That is, the GPL exists to ensure that people both have the freedom to extend and to share the software that they're using with others. Originally, copyrights and lack of distribution of the original source code were the means that commercial vendors would use to prevent such extension and sharing. Consequently, the GPL was written so that anyone given a copy of the code was also given the right to obtain the source as well as share the code/program with others.

Today, software patents figure much more prominently into the picture, and are being used in a way that undermines the sprite and goals of the GPL. For example, a company like IBM/Sun/Microsoft can release two versions of a product. One being a slightly crippled GPL'ed 'community edition' and the other being full featured non-GPL'ed edition. Now, without software patents, diligent programmers could extend the community edition so that it would have all the features of the commercial non-GPL'ed version. However, with a handful of software patents, the company in question could easily block such a move with the threat of legal retribution.

Additionally, software patents allow some companies (*cough* Google *cough*) to make extensive use of GPL software, and then proceed to make extensive use of the patent system and obtain/file-for patents that could in principle be used to block the development of some types of Free/GPL'ed software (e.g. in Google's case, think a GPL'ed enterprise search appliance, desktop search tool, or even just a plain old open source web search engine package).

So, the proposed ways in which the GPL might change just seem like reasonable efforts to protect from those who would use the patent system to undermine the original spirit while simultaneously gaining a competitive advantage by making us of GPL software.

Re:A bold one

[mpcooke3]

IBM does have software patents and releases Open source code under the IBM public license.

Infact, IBMs open source license the "IBM public license" would seem to me to offer a sensible level of protection against patent abuse.

Firstly it says if you release under this license and patent the same code you are granting royalty-free use of those patents. This might stop microsofts shennanigans of joining open standards groups, releasing software whilst secretly patenting it.

Secondly, to protect against unrelated patent claims against a contributor it says that the royalty free patent grant will be terminated if a contributor is sued for patent infrigement.

In effect this means that if I release a piece of code and patent it, then you use it under the royalty-free-patent-grant and sue me for some unrelated patent infrigement I can counterclaim against you as your right to use my patent is terminated. This seems similar to the GPL copyright protection - in that you can use it for free but if you break the "conditions of use" your right to use it is terminated. In the case of the GPL your right to use it is blocked by copyright law and in the case of the IBM license it is blocked by both copyright and patent law (Assuming you had patented it).

I'm not saying this is sensible, i'd rather that software patents were banned but it seemed a reasonable elegant solution given the current state of affairs but then IANAL...

Re:A bold one

[Bastian]

Not only its largest corporate sponsor, but its main developer.

Also, the FSF would be making GNOME and Mono unusable by their largest coprorate sponsor and provider of development muscle, Novell.

This can't last long, but it sure can burn a lot of bridges in the process. This is either going to cripple the GNU project as many of its flagship projects are forced to leave the FSF in order to remain relevant, or it is going to cripple the entire open source community as it loses all its strongest supporters and ceases to remain relevant.

Re:A bold one

[Total_Wimp]

Can someone explain to me why mass adoption of GPL software is so important?

Driver support and application support are two very important issues that get better with wider adoption. These shouldn't require much explanation.

The things that are a little harder to explain are freedom, openness and quality.

Freedom is best explained by Stalman. I actually buy a lot of his arguments. If you've been using Linux since '94, then you're probably familiar with them too. Is this helped by wider adoption? I think so. The more people are free, the more they expect freedom. The more they expect freedom, the more they don't accept a lot of the bullshit we have to put up with in our lives. If more people expected freedom, do you think we'd have to put up with shitty DRM? If more people expected freedom, do you think Microsoft would be busy closing it's Office file formats?

Openess is about companies not locking things down for their own purposes. Is the web more open now that Microsoft 'owns' the browser market? Keeping standards open is made much easier when there's wide adoption of software that uses open standards.

My favorite topic though is quality. Not only is QC much more thourough when you have a wide user base, but the wider your user base is, the more chance the several people have already asked for that useful feature you want in your software. Linux distros have improved dramatically since I first installed Red Hat 5 in '98 or '99. Things would not be so nice without wide adoption.

TW

Re:A bold one

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the GPL (which already has bordered on this before) threatens to render itself illegal.

A license cannot, itself, unwrite existing law and/or take away the rights individuals or companies have just because "we say so."

A "poisoned pill" retaliation against anyone who uses software patents clearly marches into foreign territory as far as the GPL is concerned. The GPL cannot pre-emptorally strip rights from people that are legally granted.

If the authors of the GPL have an issue with patents they need to challenge it in court. It will never be upheld that they can abolish peoples' rights to free association and to make use of their property and legally granted copyrights.

You could say, "I wrote this software for non-commercial purposes only, and if you are a commercial entity, you can't use it." However you cannot say, "I wrote this software for leftist-leaning anti-property rights folks and if you possess any claims to intellectual property, you may not use it."

Well you could say it, but it's problematic and illegal for many reasons.

The idea of dropping bombs on an enemy to try to solve problems is so much fun until you realize that's a piss poor way to find acceptance for yourself. Ironically many of the people who will support this GPL innovation are the same people who claim to be against tactics of warfare.

Or, carry on thinking that you can take over the world by eliminating all rights of the individual and free association itself. Someday maybe you'll be able to force everyone to drink from the same Kool-aid if you just bash on them long enough.

Sad, immature and futile.

It's cute when you're in your twenties but when you're an old fat slobbering long hair malcontent who believes in free love but has no one left in his life to love (except for his rabid fan boys), you might just realize you missed out on something. Or, spend the rest of your life drumming up other people to hate the things that you blame for your failures, as validation in lieu of professional success.

Oh well. Carry on then. Or wake up your life before it's too late...

Re:A bold one

[LurkerXXX]

or it is going to cripple the entire open source community as it loses all its strongest supporters and ceases to remain relevant.

Nah, the BSD folks will keep chugging along just fine.

Re:A bold one

[KDR_11k]

You can have the patents but not take legal action against the GPL or any software licensed under it. At least that's how I understood it.

Re:A bold one

[Anonymous Coward]

Making Linux unusable by it's largest corporate sponsor is kinda... stupid.

Linux was being used before IBM joined the bandwagon.

Re:A bold one

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess a general reaction might be...who cares? Linux was doing just fine and gaining footholds in diverse areas before IBM and other corps. came along and sniffed some potential profits - just because a big business has gotten involved does not mean they HAVE to be involved, from now on and forever.

Re:A bold one

[thogard]

Making it illegal for them will only make GPL enforcement harder
It won't matter unless the GPL also grants end users the right to reverse engineer GPLed code. Right now that is or maybe illegal in most places in the world unless the copyright holder explicitly allows it and none of the common free licenses allow it.

Re:A bold one

[Bastian]

True. But a lot of major projects are GPL, and I would guess that a lot of them may not be able to switch licenses due to copyright-segmentation issues. Even if they stick with older GPLs, they will take a hit due to the GPL earning a bad reputation.

At least it isn't definite. Personally, I think the FSF would do better to attack software patents by showing the absurdity of the thing by getting the whole FOSS community to mobilize on patenting everything under the sun.

Re:A bold one

[femto]

I would think that GPL V3 will try to stop companies from enforcing software patents, not from obtaining them. Thus a company (such as IBM) can have a defensive portfolio and can do what they want with it, as long as they don't use it against GPL software.

a couple of points.

1) It is unlikely that the FSF would modify the GPL without consulting major GPL users, such as IBM. I suspect the GPL V3 will have the blessing of IBM's legal department and it might even turn out that the FSF was influenced by their opinion.

2) One of the purposes if the GPL V3 woul have to be to encourage giants, such as IBM, to stomp on the parasites and encourage the spread of free software. You don't do that by discouraging the use of software patents against parasites and non-free software.

Re:A bold one

[tooth]

Linux is lock at ver 2 of the GPL, it would require a huge effort (on Linuss part) to change this.

Re:A bold one

[Luke-Jr]

If it wasn't legal by default, M$ would have been sued out of existence long ago.

Re:A bold one

[anthony_dipierro]

Picture a world in wich Linux could not be used by the Fortune 500.

Copyright doesn't restrict use. There's no way the next version of the GPL is going to restrict anyone from merely using the software.

Re:A bold one

[anthony_dipierro]

Software patents (as stupid as they are) are the law of the land. Several places I've worked at file them as a defensive measure, not as a way to extract royalties from competitors.

I've never understood (or really believed) this one. What is the purpose of filing for a patent "as a defensive measure"? Why not just publish the details of the patent and thus release the ideas into the public domain? You can't patent something that someone else already invented and published, can you?

Re:A bold one

[LurkerXXX]

Because there are lots of other companies out there who also have patents and they may sue you for patent violation. If you have a large stockpile of useful patents you can arrange a 'cross-licensing' agreement with the other company so that they can use your patents, and you can use theirs (defusing their lawsuit against you). I'd not hard to understand or believe.

Re:A bold one

[anthony_dipierro]

I'd not hard to understand or believe.

Me neither.

Re:A bold one

[silverkniveshotmail.]

I do appreciate your insight into the legality of this subject, however, when you spell microsoft as M$ this is what i picture.

Mr. Gates, you no doubt saw my use of the dollar sign in my recent post, as you have been monitoring my actions for quite some time from your sunless warren below fort Redmond.
You Live like rats. You are like rats, sir! And not like the Rats of Nimh, who were wise and ultimately benevolent.
You might be interested to know the title of my woefully unpublished Star Trek novella, "Gates of Borg".


From my parents house in Wyoming, I stab at thee

Non starter

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I bet a lot of people will start releasing their stuff with a specific version of the GPL. Political wrangling like this doesn't belong.

Re:Non starter

[GigsVT]

The GPL was written for these purposes.

The entire purpose of the GPL is to preserve and protect freedom.

The GPL is about preserving the freedom to modify, use and distribute for future viewers/consumers/users of the code and applications.

Software patents and DRM remove the freedom to modify, use, and distribute.

It's nature for the GPL to clarify its stance on such matters.

Re:Non starter

[KillShill]

everything in life is "political".

perhaps you are one of the many who defines political to mean something other than what it ought to be.

Politics is a community's ethics (morals) broadcast outside of itself.

roughly it means that what policies govern a group of people determines their interaction with everyone around them. i'm trying to be vague enough and specific enough to cover most contingencies.

that's how i like to define it.

please share your views.

Re:Non starter

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The entire purpose of the GPL is to preserve and protect freedom.

Up until now, the GPL has been leading by example. With this change, it's different: do as we say (with your business as a whole) or do without our stuff.

Who's the Monopolist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought GPL was about choices. This sounds like a contract in restraint of trade.

IBM

[pete-classic]

Later IBM. It was good while it lasted.

-Peter

Re:IBM

[Nasarius]

Later IBM. It was good while it lasted.

Not at all. IBM has made large contributions to the Linux kernel, which is explicitly licensed only under the GPLv2. No change there.

Re:IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhhh, I think the point is that IBM will not contribute any longer if they are restricted from patenting any software . . . Yeah, they contributed in the past, but future contributions would dry up if this clause is added to future revs of the GPL.

Re:IBM

[arose]

The license isn't even drafted yet so... Would you mind to share your crystal ball?

Re:IBM

[UserGoogol]

Yeah, but why would Linus switch to GPL 3? Just because Stallman says "Okay, we're using GPL 3 now!" doesn't mean anyone has to listen to him any more than people listen to him about GNU/Linux.

Re:IBM

[ScriptedReplay]

Apparently, the Reuters quote is inaccurate - see here for a post-interview comment:

Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software."

So I guess IBM would be safe, while SCO would be forbidden to distribute derivative code of the Linux kernel (but not other GPL-ed products). That sounds reasonable, at least in project form.

Re:IBM

[pete-classic]

My statement was predicated on the assumption that the article is accurate.

But you knew that, didn't you?

-Peter

Re:IBM

[arose]

I don't read minds any better then I predict the future. Anyway on what fact do you assume the article is accurate?

Re:IBM

[pete-classic]

I only assume the article is accurate for the purposes of this discussion.

Seriously, find someone else to bug.

-Peter

Re:IBM

[Nasarius]

Yeah, but why would Linus switch to GPL 3?

The interesting thing is he can't, even if he wanted to. There are thousands of copyright holders on different bits of Linux. They've all licensed their code under the GPLv2 only. Each one would have to be contacted if Linus wanted to change the license. It's an impossible task.

On the other hand, the FSF holds the copyright on all the GNU code. They can (and probably will) switch to the new license. This could lead to a future where many people are using a BSD userland on the Linux kernel.

Re:IBM

[vertinox]

Last I checked, Linus Torvalds still holds the final say of the GPL version Linux kernel will be using in the future. It's up to him to decide if the kernel is going to use GPL v3 or not.

Re:IBM

[Tim C]

The kernel is a small part of a Linux distribution. As Stallman et al are keen to point out, there is more GNU code in a typical Linux distro than there is Linux code.

IBM could contribute to the kernel, but they'd be unable to use GCC or the related tools to do it, for example.

Re:IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the kernel can't possibly use v3 unless everyone who has ever contributed agrees. The "or later" clause was removed from the kernel's license.

Re:IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Did people read the article at all?

Why does this affect IBM? Are you suggesting IBM is going to go after free software developers for violating their patents?

From the article:

"The idea is that if someone uses software patents against free software, that company or person loses the right to distribute that particular program and use it in their product, he added."

So unless IBM is targetting free software for patent violations, sue developers, closing down sites, asking code to be removed, the supposed new GPL stipulations do not kick in. IBM has hugely given to free software; they have not tried to submarine Linux or the Open Source movement.

The new stipulatons say, however, that if they try, they lose the rights to use the software. That seems rather clear and very fair; I don't think it's very nice to benefit from a community software effort while suing or litigating against that same community. In fact, such behavior is what /. usually rails against--companies who sue their own paying (here, contributing) customers or developers.

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face

[stankulp]

This just gives more ammo to the "open source is communism" crowd, no small thanks to RMS.

Yes DRM and patents suck, but open source should mean open.

Isn't it childish?

[russianspy]

I guess that will also make developers think a bit. The "normal" GPL allows the user to select eg. GPL version 2 *or at his option a later version*. That is really a recipe for disaster. Who's to say that there will never be a version of GPL that assigns all rights to a commercial entity? Or that drops the requirement to share source code?

Re:Isn't it childish?

[TheRaven64]

Welcome to 2001...

Re:Isn't it childish?

[TheRaven64]

Gah! Wrong link. Should have been:

http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week- of-Mon-20010813/001825.html

Re:Isn't it childish?

[qrczak]

FSF says so in GPL, and I trust them (emphasis mine):

13. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the Library 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.

Re:Isn't it childish?

[greginnj]

The "normal" GPL allows the user to select eg. GPL version 2 *or at his option a later version*. That is really a recipe for disaster.

Let's look at the relevant passage of GPL2 in full -- I agree that this new license sounds nasty, but I don't think it's a disaster:

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.

Ok, I parse this to mean: Programmer A releases Plotz 1.0 under GPL2 'or any later version'. Programmer B then has the right at any point in the future to use the source of Plotz 1.0 according to GPL2 (or GPL3, or GPL4, when they are released) to determine his rights. It does not mean that once GPL3 comes out, the work is no longer available under GPL2. It is not legally possible to release software in 2005 under a license that doesn't yet exist in 2005.

The real worry will be when software is released under GPL3 'or any later version', because then you can't avoid the nasty provision. If Programmer A releases Plotz 2.0 in 2007 using GPL3, Programmer B would have his choice of using the Plotz 2.0 source under GPL3, or the Plotz 1.0 source still under GPL2. As Stallman has reminded us so many times, once something is released under a GPL license, none of those rights can be taken away.

Re:Isn't it childish?

[GoCoGi]

Not true. The Copyright holder can license his software under any license he wants. That can be GPLv2 only, GPLv2 and something else, or even GPLv2 or any later version as published by the FSF.

You can license everything under GPLv2 *only*, just omit the "or any later version" from the FSF-Sourceheader template. (I do this as well)

On the other hand, it would be stupid if the FSF would not use GPLv2 _or later_ for software, where the FSF is the copyright holder. Because the FSF would never write a license they wouldn't license its own software under, they can safe a lot of editing, because they definitely would want to relicense everything under the GPLv3

Re:Isn't it childish?

[fbjon]

In other words, any later version of the GPL must be similar in spirit, otherwise it isn't a successor, and thus doesn't apply.

Re:Isn't it childish?

[arth1]

Who's to say that there will never be a version of GPL that assigns all rights to a commercial entity? Or that drops the requirement to share source code?

That's already happening. You sign away your rights to the FSF, and I know of at least one example where someone has obtained (or claims to have obtained) the right to fork and un-GPL source that someone else wrote, by paying royalties to the FSF.

http://www.palmyanoff.com/manual.htm#thedeal

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Isn't it childish?

[Bogtha]

The "normal" GPL allows the user to select eg. GPL version 2 *or at his option a later version*.

This is not true. The GPL allows the user to do so if and only if the program documentation says so. From the GPL:

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.

Who's to say that there will never be a version of GPL that assigns all rights to a commercial entity? Or that drops the requirement to share source code?

Such a license would not be "similar in spirit" as the GPL specifies.

Re:Isn't it childish?

[Anonymous Coward]

It took only a moment of reading at the link you provided to determine that you are full of shit.

Anyone who writes software and releases it under the GPL can ALSO elect to license the software under other licenses. And that's what happened to Yanoff. The royalties are going to the FSF instead of the copyright holder at the copyright holder's request.

You really should have taken a moment to look at the link you posted.

Re:Isn't it childish?

[Kjella]

Except your story is lacking on several points:

1) It doesn't state that Matthias assigned copyright to the FSF.
2) It says "all parties agreed" but did not specify which.
3) It says "agreed to pay royalty to the FSF on behalf of Matthias."

There are at least two possible scenarios I can think of:
1. He never assigned copyright, agreed to license it and donated the funds to the FSF, which also would be his collection agency.
2. He did assign copyright, FSF approached him with the offer. With his approval, FSF licensed his work to them.

If you got some more detailed evidence that he did in fact assign copyright and that he did not approve or was never consulted before entering this agreement, feel free. Otherwise I'd categorize it as FUD.

Kjella

Re:Isn't it childish?

[FastMemFirst]

Such a license would not be "similar in spirit" as the GPL specifies.

I wonder how far "similar in spirit" could be stretched by a lawyer, if indeed it's an acceptable legal term at all. While I understand the motive behind it (if you could forsee future alterations in enough detail to specify them as allowable later, then you'd add them there and then) it's definitely a lot less defined than other parts of the license.

Besides, the GPL is a contract between the developer and the user. Without some sort of "meta GPL" that restricts how the license itself can be altered, I doubt that there's any real restriction to it's future development...

Re:Isn't it childish?

[Lodragandraoidh]

If you are really worried about it - write your own license based on the GPL version you like - and strike all the verbiage you don't.

For instance, you could call it "MyPL" (My Public License) - and drive on.

Only you are responsible for the consequences of your actions - you can choose to license *your* software any way you think is appropriate, regardless of whether RMS likes it or not.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Too early for speculation.

[Stradenko]

Without seeing a draft of the new GPL, how can they speculate?
And once drafted, the FSF will most certainly be accepting feedback from the community.

$0.02 from me

[Dark Paladin]

If this is accurate, then I honestly feel this is a bad idea. One of the strengths of the GPL is its ability to bring people in, while still enforcing the idea of Free (as in Freedom) software while keeping it Free (as in Beer). By forcing companies to choose either patents or GPL, I believe we do a disservice to both.

Now, if they want to put in the clause that says "If you try to patent something that's in GPL software, then turn around and use said software, *then* you lose the ability to use it". This would prevent SCO like actions of "We'll use what we want, and sue you anyway" (yes, I know they're sueing off of contract or copyrights or whatever it is this week - but just go with me here).

Anyway, as stated, that's just my $0.02 after reading the article. IMHO, so on and so forth, so I could be wrong.

Re:$0.02 from me

[johnjaydk]

Flat out prohibiting use of GPL software to companies that us DRM and/or Patents seems a bit extreme. Sure I would love to see both go, but this overreaching and do us more harm than good. We simply don't have the strength to do it.

How about something along the lines of prohibiting companies from using gpl stuff in building drm schemes ?

Re:$0.02 from me

[Miros]

Yeah, but dont forget, you cant patent something that already exists. (novel) thus, all that this license would ensure would be that researchers killing themselves over algorythms, which, without patents will never make them any money making their effort worthless, will be put out in the cold by GPL'd software.... is that what we want>?

Re:$0.02 from me

[ArsonSmith]

This is the typical knee jerk reaction to something someone said that they didn't really mean and/or don't have the political swing to implement.

It is not going to be patents or GPL it is going to be if you use your patent in a GPLed piece of software then you have released a license to you patented IP under the GPL to all you distribute that software too. They can still use patents. They can still charge for their patent to have it used in a non-GPLed product.

Re:$0.02 from me

[pdxaaron]

...while still enforcing the idea of Free (as in Freedom) software

The GPL has never been about Free as in Freedom, that would be the BSD license.

The GPL is free as in free to hang with the cool kids as long as you dress the same way and say you like the same stuff. It is the equivalent of teaching someone how to fish, but only if they promise to not only give away any fish they catch, but also to teach anyone else who walks by for the rest of their lives how to fish as well. While you can argue the merit of the restrictions, by definition, restricting something's use is restricting the user's freedom. The GPL is not about freedom, it's about The Open Source Movement(TM)

If you want to release your code freely, use the BSD license and release it freely to all. Releasing it with such ideological and restrictive clauses as the GPL possesses, is more of a "as long as you believe the same stuff I do and march in line with the other penguins" kind of a thing.

Re:$0.02 from me

[geekee]

"How about something along the lines of prohibiting companies from using gpl stuff in building drm schemes ?"

If GPL is about freedom, why are you restricting the uses of "free" software. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

GPL 3 to be renamed to...

[Anonymous Coward]

..."How to to Piss off IBM and Apple in one easy step" PL.

Linus and his patents?

[saterdaies]

I wonder how this will effect Linus and his sizable patent portfolio.

Re:Linus and his patents?

[bahwi]

They'll have to release a new version of Linux

linux-nopatch-old-gpl-only-no-clause-v2.5.6.129.49

Re:Linus and his patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "affect," not "effect." I hate being a grammar nazi.

Re:Linus and his patents?

[cybergrunt69]

ya no whut - if you hate being the grammar nazi or teh spelling nazi, then DON'T DO IT! Except the fakt that not everyone is used to righting thesis papers, we're writing comments to a story or an off-topic thread.

GET OVER IT.

Re:Linus and his patents?

[mattyrobinson69]

The linux kernel is licensed under the GPL version 2 only. Also, afaik, to change the license of linux would require written permission from everybody who has ever contibuted code (that hasn't since been removed obviously).

The FSF releasing a new version of the GPL (GPLv3) would not rectroactively relicense all GPL2 works into GPL3 works.

Although, IANAL.

GPL goes off the cliff

[14erCleaner]

This kind of BS will drive away companies that have been very supportive of free software, like IBM and HP. Do you think they're really going to renounce their existing software patent portfolios? No way, they'll just use a different license.

"Free as in speech -- as long as you're saying what we want you to say". No way is this going to work.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[tveidt]

Don't believe everything Slashdot writes.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[LurkerXXX]

If the GNU folks move to this new license, I forsee a huge fork in Linux's future.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[Nimrangul]

I don't think Linus is stupid enough to move the code to the GPL3, but I expect that every thing done officially by the GNU people will suddenly have forks or people will switch to using the BSD userland tools.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[DroopyStonx]

Not quite.

You're kinda missing the entire point.

DRM and patents are NOT good and do nothing but stifle innovation. The GPL is insuring that this won't happen.

There is nothing at all wrong with that, unless, of course, you (generally speaking) are trying to set up some sort of thought/idea extortion.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Linux has got to be smart enough to realise what that would do to the kernel, developement would stall on a massive scale as all workers for the companies that have made Linux what it is fork the codebase and move elsewhere.

I think there is another option for the userland, perhaps IBM, who seems to really like Linux right now, will release it's Unix userland tools under the GPL2 and really become the new centre for Linux operating systems. Imagine, Linux would be more of a Unix than ever before.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[Krach42]

Yes, because everyone knows that companies would rather ditch all their GPL software and rewrite everything that depends upon it, rather than give up their software patents.

So, they're stuck with continuing to use the GPLv2 software that they already have, but definitely not any new GPLv3 software.

You would likely be surprised at which companies with software patents use GPL software and where they use such software.

I'd say that this would make a hard crunch for some companies in making some serious choices of what they want to do.

Now, for everyone commenting about the whole "If you don't agree with us then you can't play with us." idea of the GPLv3. You have to remember that the GPL has ALWAYS been this way. The attitude of the GPL has quite often been, "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, then write your own code."

This exists for a number of libraries, like libpopt. Software under a license that is not GPL-compatible cannot link into libpopt, because it is protected by the GPL. Thus, if you want to use libpopt, you have to make your program GPL. This right here is an example of the "You can't play with us" attitude that is ALREADY in the GPL community.

Don't act like this is something new.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[SpaceLifeForm]

And if they do go to another license, they will need to worry about being overtaken by the darkside.

IBM and HP 'get it'. MS does not 'get it'.

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[Turmio]

Well can't they just continue using GPLv2? It's not like the licensing of all GPLed software in the world is automatically upgraded at the second FSF releases GPLv3. Eg. if, for some odd reason, Linus decides to go with GPLv3 with Linux, you can continue using and fork the latest Linux that was released under GPLv2 (this is also the reason why I doubt very few large scale GPLv2 projects will change the licensing to GPLv3 given these anti-corporate clauses are really left in the final version - you have to remember GPLv3 is only in the drafting stage at the moment).

Re:GPL goes off the cliff

[KillShill]

Free as in speech.... but you're using their megaphones, which they're sharing with you in the spirit of freedom, to announce your unequivocal support for DRM, software patents and general anti-customer rhetoric.

kindly stop using their megaphone if you feel you don't like their way of doing business.

Not good for open source

[WinDoze]

This will result in some very talented developers simply stopping their contributions to open source. Not everyone makes their living with open source. A lot of the best talent does commercial work for their day job.

This sounds scary...

[Fungus King]

The GPL already seems scary enough to me already, being that if Stallman wants to change the GPL then the license for your program changes too...

So what happens if someone makes a load of GPL'd software then comes up with some brilliant ideas and patents it? What happens to all his previous work?

I don't see how this is going to help free software at all. It just makes the prospect of it more scary, IMO - I'm all for free software, but I still think that closed source and proprietary software (to an extent), has a place - example, I use Crossover Office rather than Wine, and I use that to run Power Tab Editor because there is no decent F/OSS alternative (yet).

I think the FSF is running the risk of alienating itself from the rest of the computing world when it should be trying to extend into it more. Just my thoughts...

Re:This sounds scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

being that if Stallman wants to change the GPL then the license for your program changes too...

Not true. If you are using GPL version 2, then you can use newer versions, but you can also stay with version 2. If you want to benignly patent something that you released as GPLv2, then you can keep it GPLv2.

Unless you've assigned your copyright to the FSF, then nothing they or Stallman do can change your program's license.

Re:This sounds scary...

[Flyboy Connor]

The GPL already seems scary enough to me already, being that if Stallman wants to change the GPL then the license for your program changes too...

No, it doesn't. You license your program under a certain version of the GPL. In the GPL it says that the user may use the supplied version of the GPL, or any later version, at the user's convenience. Probably most users that are affected by this clause will not use the later version.

Of course, you could release a new version of your software with a new GPL version. But the old version still exists, and is available under the old GPL. Even the author of the software is not allowed to change THAT particular fact.

Re:This sounds scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two people have tried to correct you; one is simply wrong and the other is not entirely clear (and possibly wrong).

Their point is essentially correct, though. Your copyright notice is what determines what license is used. Most people licensing their software under the GPL include a notice that says essentially "GPL 2 or any later version", but you are not required to - you can just say "GPL 2, period", and nobody can redistribute it under any other GPL.

Almost every statement I read on Slashdot about the GPL is simply factually incorrect in one way or another...

Re:This sounds scary...

[maxpublic]

I think the FSF is running the risk of alienating itself from the rest of the computing world when it should be trying to extend into it more.

The FSF is run by fanatics. Fanatics, by definition, are NEVER in touch with the real world, nor do they care to be. So far as they're concerned they're in the business of forcing everyone else adopt THEIR views, using whatever tools are available. In this case it looks like GPL 3.0 is going to be that tool, although if it includes a clause like this it'll fail miserably since so very few people will ever use it.

Max

Re:This sounds scary...

[njcoder]

the "any later version" statement in the license is optional. You have to specify that you're licensing it under GPL v2.0 or any later version. If you don't it's only under v2.0.

Re:This sounds scary...

[sgtrock]

Will you please calm down? The Greve has already stated that he was badly misquoted. Look up at the top of this list of posts, for heaven's sake!

Fuel to the fire.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pure flamebait! This new GPL restriction is like throwing gasoline on the GPL vs. BSD is more free fire.

Microsoft must have spent weeks crafting this bit of "news".

Free Software, My Ass

[ari_j]

This defeats the "free" part of Free Software. I sure hope that the article is wrong, that the GPL does not adopt these provisions, or that nobody uses the GPL when it does. This is like making it illegal to watch broadcast TV if you have ever watched satellite. It's impertinent, out of place, and a fundamental corruption of the whole point of the operation.

Re:Free Software, My Ass

[Peaker]

Restricting the use of GPL'd software by companies that use government-enforced laws to kill Free Software is not against users' freedom, its against users' power.

Freedom is great, power to restrict others' freedoms not so great. Power to restrict others' powers to restrict freedoms - fine by me.

Read the article, not the headline...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Stallman will write a draft version of the new GPL by December, after which it will be evaluated by thousands of organizations, software developers and software users in 2006.

The draft version may contain a proposal to penalize those companies which use digital rights management (DRM) software which protects songs and films against piracy, and which is seen as an anomaly by the free software association.

So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best.

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[Comatose51]

Or FUD considering who owns MSNBC...

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[dvdeug]

So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best.

Last time RMS came out with a new license, the GFDL, Debian and several authors of GNU documentation couldn't get him to budge. Perhaps if we fight it before it becames paper, RMS will be a little less inflexible.

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[nietsch]

Indeed, there is not much substance in the article.
The fact that i distilled from it is this: FSF Europe (which is not FSF itself) got a grant from NLnet and filled a press release with speculation.

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it was reuters, not the FSF that filled it with speculation portrayed as fact

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why this time there will be a more open process, the GPL is way more important than the GFDL. Also the GFDL isn't rejected by Debian as such, just if you use certain options. The Wikipedia seems doing fine with the GFDL as well. And lastly many people simple license their documentation under the GPL (another reason it's more important).

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[nietsch]

I doubt that, as reuters is in the business of ditributing news, not making it. The half-arsed interview is way to much work compared to: hey it sounds credible, they did pay our fee, let's put it on the line"

I think it was FSF-Europe beating their drum. To gain some acceptance the need to be subject in several newsitems. This was just one of them. I hope I am wrong on this one.

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[adtifyj]

... and if we go on past experience, when Stallman puts his thoughts onto paper, and he uses the review processes that he put in place to convert his ramblings into a license, the world becomes a slightly better place.

I am appalled at the lack of respect and trust being shown by slashdotters; give RMS enough credit to go find the details of the proposed clauses, and provide an informed response.ot

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[njcoder]

"So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best."

It shows what RMS is thinking and this isn't out of line with what his vision has been in the past. Just like how the FSF considers the LGPL to be an intermediate license to get people to start using free software and then hopefully get rid of the LGPL.

Many people like the GPL but how many software developers would like to go where RMS wants software to go? RMS is in a different boat. We can't expect all software developers to be teachers and get free/cheap rent by living on campus and make money on grants for developing a free software movement.

Some software developers want to afford to live a nice life like other people do. Some have to work for companies developing software that may have patents associated with it and also work on free software in their spare time.

Many projects are funded by large companies that have patented software projects. How will they react to GPL v3?

Though RMS and the FSF may take community input and make revisions to the license, is that good enough? What is really hapenning? Is RMS changing his view or is he just creating more intermediary steps to reach his goal. It's important to understand what RMS and the FSF are trying to achieve. Just because we like where they are now doesn't mean we should close our eyes and follow them blindly without really understanding where they want to be and if that fits in with what is attainable and what we personally want to attain. How many software developers out there really would want to be where RMS want's software development to be? This whole inching forward with the FSF seems like it could be a slippery slope and while working for more "freedom" we wind up losing it or something else.

Can free software, and software developers, survive and prosper in a world where software is free when not much else is?

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the FSF got a significant part of that grant. FSF Europe only a small part. It was a joint press release!

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[DataCannibal]

Yes but, it's a probably good thing that RMS gets to know, through a Slashdot discussion, that a lot of people think that penalising companies who use DRM, or patents, is a very bad idea, so that he can free up his mind for thinking about other parts of the licence before he start putting pen to paper to write the draft.

Good idea, bad idea

[Andrew Lenahan]

I like the boldness behind this concept... DRM and software patents, much like spam, tend to be the sort of things that nearly everyone hates about but few actually do anything about them.

On the other hand, I worry that it might be a deterrent to large companies adopting free software if they believe that the "free" software will restrict their business practices in some way. What's next, witholding software to companies that pollute the invironment? That pay less to female employees? That don't have casual Fridays?

To rid ourselves of software patents and DRM, we need to show that those things are bad business models (*cough* $300 Million wasted on DIVX DVDs *cough*) not by adopting a holier-than-thou attitude and pretending to take the high moral ground.

What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxation?

[CDMA_Demo]

From the article: The free software association said on Tuesday it would start adapting rules for development and use of free software by including penalties against those who patent software or use anti-piracy technology.

This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license. This obviously doesn't solve the problem because you can always use older GPLed software and modify it yourself to keep it up to date. The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it. The new license will be saying something like: "Hey, you can have this candy as long as you don't take any from those guys"

We really need to think about where this is taking us.

They have balls!

[putko]

Theo De Raadt has chutzpah: he dropped support for adaptec hardware in OpenBSD, because they strung them along about giving him docs. Not code/binaries -- documentation.

And although I don't like the GPL (I prefer MIT/BSD terms), I really appreciate that RMS and the GPL crowd have such balls to do this one.

It is a long time coming -- finally the GPL people figure they are big enough to make a difference where it really counts.

They really care about this stuff!

Re:They have balls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Restricting use of the code for patent or DRM reasons is exactly the OPPOSITE of what OpenBSD wants - it's why they no longer includes the latest Apache. The SOURCE should be free for everyone, (including Adaptec).

Re:They have balls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps. But they don't have a clue. This will do more to hurt then help. I agree that DRM and software patents are bad, but this is a very shortsighted way of fighting them.

No shit

[MAXOMENOS]

This is going to lead to an anti-GPL revolt. I know I'm considering it right now.

Re:No shit

[Flower]

You didn't even RTFA. The exact scenerio brought up was that if someone filed a patent lawsuit against a GPL'd program the plaintiff would not be able to use said program. More than likely the idea would be that you can't use the code within their own proprietary and competing product. I particuliarly like the comment afterward stating that such a clause would probably be toothless.

But more importantly, you haven't seen even one proposed draft, not one single line of the proposed license and you are "considering" becoming part of some anti-GPL revolt or whatever over some spontaneous, reactionary /. fact devoid groupthink? I stand bewildered.

Let the "Flower, you must be new here" jokes commence.

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

>This is going to lead to an anti-GPL revolt. I know I'm considering it right now.

Maybe in you, the article - based on heresay - has had the desired effect? You are gullible!

The GPL revision has TECHNICAL GOALS - preventing patent abuse. NOT patent revenge. What is the difference?

Suppose I take some GPL code and put it in my hardware product, and I don't release the GPL code. I'm forced to release the derivitive work, correct?

So I release the code, with a notice that this code MAY NEVER BE USED BY ANYONE because all of the software modifications are patented by me.

Am I violating the current GPL? No one forsaw this. It violates the spirit of the GPL, but legally... who knows.

This is not even about "patent revenge", or taxes for the arts. The BEST lies in the world have to have a grain of truth. Some will take facts out of context, and skirt dangerously close to a lie. This writer ought to work for a politician.

You've been played for a fool. Or you are a troll.

Consider the source

[mrwiggly]

Honestly, this is speculation and FUD.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Re:This is cutting off your nose to spite your fac

[TheRaven64]

This has absolutely nothing to do with open source. This is about Free Software. The GPL is a license created by the Free Software Foundation. If you don't like Free Software, then pick a different license from the list. Personally, I prefer Theo De Raadt's brand of Free Software to Richard M Stallman's, but I don't claim that this group has the right to dictate policy to an organisation such as the FSF.

A restrictive GPL will go unused.

[Reverend528]

If such changes are made in the next GPL, we probably won't see very many people using it. The release of a new version does not automagically upgrade all software licensed under v2 of the GPL. Among other things, it violates the discrimination clause of the OSI policy, as well as the debian policy.

Not a good idea

[scronline]

Yeah, this is really going to help the take up of the GPL and OSS. Many software producers write software for both Windows AND *NIX. So now they'll be forced to just completely stay away from *NIX.

For example, mp3...out the window for using OSS, so why should they bother making their codec linux compatible?

What about all that stuff that IBM is putting out? For that matter, now Novell, Redhat.....WHOOPS. Guess the GPL will effectively kill off several major players....

Stallman, I hate to say this, but you're not exactly the sharpest tack in the box, are you?

Re:Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand how you equate this new GPL with linux-based software. No one is forced to use a particular license when developing linux software. You seem to be connecting dots that are mostly unrelated. Also, it's not as if drafting a new GPL invalidates the old one. People are still free to develop under the previous GPL. Anyone can craft a license.. the FSF folks are just prepackaging the legalese for you.

Re:Not a good idea

[KillShill]

neither was gandhi by letting the british beat him and his followers up.

being sharp != doesn't mean what you think it means.

Going way too far ...

[molarmass192]

You can't just lock out anybody who patents software. Lock out those who enforce patents, threaten with patents, sit on patents, etc ... but simply owning a patent? A lot of these patents are used defensively. This new license would bar IBM, Novell, HP, etc from using software under the new license ... heck ... I think even RedHat has a few patents.

Don't Know

[Renraku]

I don't know if this is a good idea or not. They are right in patents leading to a dead end. Eventually you won't be able to code anything without violating a patent and opening yourself up to lawsuit. At least, if the software companies had it their way...

Its no longer about innovation. Its about a landgrab. "Method for drawing on screen graphics using a video device." for example. That is a lot of land! It would be like me laying claim to area enough to cover six of today's states back in the days of western expansion.

Re:Don't Know

[KillShill]

as the old saying goes: "you don't get rich by being honest."

You can pry my iPod from my cold, dead hands.

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM = choice. Safari = Internet. iPod = music.

Give me Apple or give me Death.

Re:You can pry my iPod from my cold, dead hands.

[frodo from middle ea]

How about I smack you to death with an Apple iPod.

Re:You can pry my iPod from my cold, dead hands.

[soft_guy]

If Steve Jobs says his DRM is OK, then it is OK.

If Steve Jobs were to shoot a man to death, I would know for sure that the man needed to be shot.

No way

[fliplap]

Wow, I must say I agree with nothing in this article. I might not like DRM, but there's no way I would agree with an "Internet Tax" to pay artists. I don't agree with software patents either, but I can tell you that my code will continue to be licensed under the current GPL.

IBM holds piles of software patents, but most of us will agree that they've done much for the OSS community

Re:No way

[ramblin billy]

Exactly - the whole 'free software' idea seems to ignore the fact that an awful lot of people are motivated by making money. The 'net tax' is an especially ludicrous idea. Instead of paying the producer of the content I actually USE, they want me to pay for the privilege of connecting at all, split my money up between who knows who, whether I've even seen the content or not? Yeah right. Doesn't that mean that there would really be NO free content? Otherwise someone has to decide who gets paid and who doesn't. How much is a post on /. worth? If mod points are involved it would give a whole new twist to karma. I guess they'd have to come up with some way to track my internet usage as well. Yeah this idea will really strike a blow for freedom. Brilliant...if you don't play by my rules...I'm taking my toys and going home.

billy - who wonders what the goatse guy's take is

Socialist tendencies?

[RentonSentinel]

It sounds like this is just a general lashing out at big corporations. "We're taking our free software away from you" type mentality.

Well, bravo. Push the big corporations back into Microsofts waiting arms.

Set up "JUDGES" to will decide who in society can use GPL and who cannot.

And then the hackers will just come up with REALLY FREE software when Linux becomes to burdened with legal and governmental restrictions.

Re:Socialist tendencies?

[TheRaven64]

And then the hackers will just come up with REALLY FREE software when Linux becomes to burdened with legal and governmental restrictions

I think that they already did.

Ok, so what happens to projects like Media-S?

[Weaselmancer]

How about Media-S, which is a GPL'd DRM?

It's almost a philosophy question. Will Media-S dissolve in a puff of logic? Can the GPL create a rock so big it can't lift it?

Just makes the implicit explicit

[SuperKendall]

If you have code that is using some patented aspects, and you make that code GPL - what good is it? No-one else can work on it. It's not Free in the GPL sense so you might as well not have bothered to use that licence.

This change is just pointing out a situation that already exists, and ensuring that if you pick up some GPL code that it is at least as patent-trouble free as the creators could make it, that nothing is hidden by the makers to trap you later.

Re:Just makes the implicit explicit

[KDR_11k]

Didn't the GPL already include the rule that you have to make any patents you add to GPL code freely available to the project?

Re:Just makes the implicit explicit

[Anonymous Coward]

If what the article said was correct, even a company that made all of it's patents licensed with no restrictions for Free Software couldn't use the GPL or distribute any software under the GPL. Fortunately that article is wrong, the plan is to make it so you can have all the software patents you want but if you ever use them against a Free Software project you lose the ability to distribute (and in some countries use) GPLed software.

I think this is laudable, and potential suicide

[crovira]

Unless you can run prorietary copyrighted (but not patented) software.

Otherwise Stallman has just committed "sepuku".

While I admire open-source software, and I agree that patents on "business methods" are "a patent of an idea" and loathsome, the things that have kept me from publishing some things are "proprietary data."

In many respects, both are onerous.

/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[Knome_fan]

No, the GPL3 will not have these provision?

How do I know?
Because the process of drafting and discussiong the GPL3 has just started.

Here's todays press release from the FSF Europe
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

and here:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3
is the mailing list, in case you want to participate in the discussion.

Re:/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[Brento]

No, the GPL3 will not have these provision? How do I know?

Because you phrase everything as a question so people give you all the answers?

Re:/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[fsmunoz]

I must say that I'm impressed on how you can still find the strength to try to add some real information in this article. You're a better man than me, I gave up long ago, /. is the playing ground of the free-as-in-I-don't-give-a-fuck-gimme-the-demo whiners.

Re:/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[Knome_fan]

"Because you phrase everything as a question so people give you all the answers?"

Do you think so? Really?
Could this be the case?

Re:/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you for real?

Re:/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[WilliamSChips]

Were you ever on "Whose Line"?

It depends on the specifics

[FreeUser]

That one is bold. And is not a good idea IMHO. Almost every company today uses GPLed software, also those with software patents (e.g. Nokia, Motorola). Making it illegal for them will only make GPL enforcement harder.

Enforcement might be a better clause, and since the article doesn't reveal the exact wording, that may in fact be what is intended. I.e. filing for and receiving a patent may not invalidate your license to use GPLed V. 3 software, but enforcing the patent might be. An additional clause allowing a patent to be enforced if it has also been granted without strings attached to any and all GPLed software might be another stance.

You definitely don't want to hamstring GPL friendly companies from enforcing patents if they are attacked by Microsoft's patent portfolio, or make it impossible for companies to use GPLed software because they feel they have to file defensive patents, but you also don't want to allow Microsoft et. al. to use GPLed software when their policy is to destroy it via software patents.

So, perhaps the best approach:

"This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company files for and receives a software patent and does not explicitly license any and all use of that patent to all GPLed software free of any requirements (monetary or otherwise) except those stated in the GPL, and if they ever seek to enforce that patent in a non-defensive matter. I.e. the only enforcement of said patent which will not revoke this license is one that is in direct retaliation of a patent enforcement action by another firm or person."

Of course, the lawyers would need to clean up the language quite a bit, but you get the gist.

GPL friendly companies can then patent software, use it to defend themselves against the depridations of Microsoft, Apple, etc., but any and all Free Software released under the GPL would be protected in perpetuity.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Anonymous Coward]

Why beat around the bush? the clause should read "This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company is in anyway affiliated with microsoft or SCO"

Re:It depends on the specifics

[maxpublic]

"This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company files for and receives a software patent and does not explicitly license any and all use of that patent to all GPLed software free of any requirements (monetary or otherwise) except those stated in the GPL, and if they ever seek to enforce that patent in a non-defensive matter. I.e. the only enforcement of said patent which will not revoke this license is one that is in direct retaliation of a patent enforcement action by another firm or person."

If this clause were implemented in GPL 3.0 you can bet I'd never use a product riding under the banner of such a fucked up, communistic, left-wing-looney-toon-ideology license. It's one thing to be able to tell a person what they can do with YOUR software; it's quite another to try to force your bullshit down their throat when it comes to THEIR software.

GPL 2.0 works just fine, thanks. I'll leave 3.0 to the asshats and cocksuckers who think they're riding at the head of a fucking religious crusade.

Max

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Knetzar]

The question is would IBM and other major companies be willing to use this new version of the GPL?

What would IBM, Sun, and MySQL gain? What would they lose?

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Kjella]

It'll also make the company's patents next to worthless. If I can blatantly rip off their patented inventions without any fear of retaliation, it's as if the patents don't exists. Other companies would trample all over them. If you can charge nothing yourself, whereas everyone else will force you to license their patents (or be sued) you end up with a big net loss. Patents are bargaining chips both in terms of cash and mutual licensing agreements.

It is also trivially defeated by a shell company. Microsoft Inc. sells patent to shell company, shell company sues "GPL friendly" company. Since the shell company make nothing of their own they can't be countersued and since they use no GPL software no license can be revoked. Microsoft can't be sued because they didn't initiate any patent suit. Whoops.

Kjella

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Aim Here]

"It's one thing to be able to tell a person what they can do with YOUR software; it's quite another to try to force your bullshit down their throat when it comes to THEIR software."

Now I don't think GPLv3 will look like the grandparent, (Everyone here seems to be duped by blatant spin from fucking MSNBC and Reuters) but where does the prospective GPL-snippet in the grandparent post say anything about telling someone what to do with his software?

It does tell people that they're not allowed to use patents, but a software patent is just a device for allowing the patent holder to force his license down a software developer's throat.

If you're against being told what to do with your software, you should support anti-patent devices like these.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, apparently under the new proposal you can get as many software patents as you want but you can't sue over any of those patents being used in Free Software. As an example, Corel could obtain a patent on a word processing feature and sue IBM over SmartSuite without any problems but they would lose the ability to distribute GPL software if they sued IBM over a patch to OpenOffice or Koffice. Basically, as long as you never sue anyone over using whatever it is you patented in Free Software you won't have any problems.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun dealt with patents in the CDDL by granting a license to the users and developers of the software. It creates a 'patent pool' of sorts that is not associated with Sun but with the codebase itself. It also has a mutual destruction clause deterring lawsuits against the codebase.

The CDDL recognizes that patents aren't going away anytime soon and tries to realistically deal with them. In OpenSolaris, Sun really did an amazing job of combining so many conflicting interests--third-party code not owned by Sun, outside contributions, Sun's code, patents among the whole mess, etc. Also, the foundation for this was laid out in the MPL...not the GPL. The GPL simply would not have allowed a solution.

(IANAL)

Re:It depends on the specifics

[fitten]

It seems to be telling me what I can do with other software as well, not just the GPL software that I might be using.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Roadstar]

Of course, the lawyers would need to clean up the language quite a bit, but you get the gist.

Lawyers to produce clean and comprehensible language? Wake me up when it snows in Hell.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[ninejaguar]

"This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company files for and receives a software patent and does not explicitly license any and all use of that patent to all GPLed software free of any requirements (monetary or otherwise) except those stated in the GPL, and if they ever seek to enforce that patent in a non-defensive matter. I.e. the only enforcement of said patent which will not revoke this license is one that is in direct retaliation of a patent enforcement action by another firm or person."

A reasonable protection and possible mechanism for GPL propogation that would achieve the end goal of the license. If the biggest patent holders were to agree with it, the only logical course for anyone else not to violate those patents would be to 1) Pay a licensing fee to the holder. Or, 2) Use the same software under GPL thereby gaining protection.

Good chess, I hope something like it is adopted.

The GPL is the most often used open source license by a very large percentage with 10 times the number of projects than the second closest competitor, and that happens to be the LGPL. It will be difficult for corporations to avoid using it as the current patent craze takes hold and goes beyond reason. They'll be taking the medicine even as they're making themselves sick.

= 9J =

Re:It depends on the specifics

[Weirdofreak]

you also don't want to allow Microsoft et. al. to use GPLed software when their policy is to destroy it via software patents
Why not? I'd rather they were trying to destroy free software with free software than without it, but I'm not particularly fussed either way, since they won't succeed.

Free software doesn't have to fight nonfree any more than neanderthals had to wage war on whatever their competition was. They turned out to be better suited and achieved dominance. They didn't mean for that to happen, it was just the natural order of things. Free software will win because it is inherantly better than nonfree software, so it doesn't have to try to kill the latter off - that will either just happen or, as is more likely, a few niche areas will remain propreitary while the rest become free. Trying to speed up the process is unnecessary and unsporting, and when all competition is gone, evolution slows effectively to a halt, so I'd prefer we don't try to speed up the inevitable.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[jonwil]

Here is a possible idea of what you could say:
If you enforce any patents against this GPL code, you loose all rights to use this GPL code.

That way, companies can continue to hold (and enfroce) software patents. But if they want to use GPL code, they cant enforce their patents against it.

Re:It depends on the specifics

[FreeUser]

It seems to be telling me what I can do with other software as well, not just the GPL software that I might be using.

No, you can do whatever you like with your software. But if you're going to incorporate MY software into your software, you damn well better adhere to the conditions of my license. Otherwise, use someone elses software or write your own.

Reuters got it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Reuters got it wrong -- see what The Register writes

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jarich]

All software should be FREE!

So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.

This marks the end of any relevance the GPL has. I wonder what will replace it?

Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[scovetta]

Ok, so let's say I'm a big ass software company that has started to roll out Linux. I've got a couple hundred patents to protect my IP (without which I could not sustain my business). Now the New GPL comes along and tells me I can't use Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc.

What am I going to do?

That's right ladies and gentlemen, run to Microsoft or another non-GPL vendor. I'm sure Bill would be happy to have me back.

Seriously. What if Microsoft added a clause to their licensing that says you can't run it on a network with any other operating systems?

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[Richard_at_work]

Now the New GPL comes along and tells me I can't use Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc.

None of those applications will be affected - Linux is specifically under version 2 of the GPL, Apache and Tomcat are under the Apache License. Even so, If any major opensource project were affected, you would see forks of the codebase happen at the last viably licensed point, just like what happeend with Xfree.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[TheCabal]

It could get worse than that...

Imagine running Oracle on a Linux server. While Linux may be tied to a specific GPL version, what about all the other stuff that comes with it? A lot of the core utilities come from GNU, and they'll most likely rush to embrace the newest GPL when it comes out.

Even my beloved OpenSSH with its BSD license could be affected since it relies on a lot of GPL'd software.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[jalet]

There's absolutely NO problem.

Nobody will force these companies to use software licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.

BTW Apache, and possibly Tomcat, are NOT licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL.

The free riders and/or patent holders will have to stick with older versions, that's all. If they don't agree, then let them rewrite from scratch. In any case it will be THEIR choice, like it is currently THEIR choice to patent things.

Why would big companies be allowed to piss on Free Software developers and not expect some form of retaliation ?

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so let's say I'm a big ass software company that has started to roll out Linux. I've got a couple hundred patents to protect my IP (without which I could not sustain my business). Now the New GPL comes along and tells me I can't use Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc.

The GPL is not, has never been and likely never will be an EULA. Repeated for emphasis: it is not a licence to use software.

When you want to charge for it or give it away for free, then the GPL kicks in. "Never click ok" should be one of the movement's slogans.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[DroopyStonx]

If you have a couple hundred pantents for "IP", you have abused the patent system and are a contributing factor to the problem.

As a result, you will be required to PAY for CLOSED SOURCE software that most likely won't fit your needs. Bill might be happy to have you back, but the drain on your budget won't be at all appealing.

Why should leeches in society be allowed to benefit in the same manner as those that don't exploit the system for financial gain?

It's people like this that you don't want using free software because they will, at some point, try to exploit it.

That is what this is trying to prevent.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[Richard_at_work]

Why would it be affected? OpenSSH would just be linked against a *specific* version of the GPLed software that is affected, and not hte newer versions. If a feature is needed, its implemented into what is essentially a fork. Its the same with any software, if the new license proves to be disliked, you will see forks appearing and projects split into a GPL2 codebase and a GPL3 codebase, essentially independant of each other.

Nothing that RMS or the FSF does will take away older versions of the software, and so long as those versions are under the GPL 2 you can continue using them as you do today.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never click ok" should be one of the movement's slogans.

Errm... So, you never get anything done? Pressing cancel all the time doesn't seem very productive.

Even when you're in CLI, you still have to press "y" in certain situations.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[symbolic]

I've got a couple hundred patents to protect my IP

More likely, you're a company that has done little more than lay claim to various methods of software implementation. Unless it's something fairly unique and truly innovative, calling it "IP" is a little presumptuous. From what I've seen, most of what's patented doesn't qualify.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[TheCabal]

Forks are bad, bad, bad. A simply terrible idea. Now I'll have to deal with X number of implementations of Software Y. Dealing with the fork when the FreeSWAN people decided to part ways was bad enough and that was just *one* project. Imagine what it would be like if almost every GPL'd project went that route. It reminds me of a joke I recently read...

I often see it written that Free (note the capital F) is all about choice...you're free to do whatever you want with it. Now seems that this new GPL seems bent on taking some of that choice away. It has probably been asked before, but is this the beginning of the end of GPL?

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so let's say I'm a big ass software company that has started to roll out Linux. I've got a couple hundred patents to protect my IP (without which I could not sustain my business). Now the New GPL comes along and tells me I can't use Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc.

What am I going to do?

As far as the Linux kernel is considered, then the COPYING file in the tarball explicitly says that:

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

                                                Linus Torvalds

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[KillShill]

or what if licenses that restrict HOW you use software is invalid from the get-go?

copyright only allows you to restrict distribution through the courts, not through technical or pseudo-legal means. those are extra-copyright terms, to which the public never agreed to.

i'd be far more content to let the RIAA/MPAA/software cartels sue each and every infringer than for them to artificially and against the customer/owner of the products, restrict their usage.

sue as in civilly, not criminally. copyright infringement has only recently turned criminal.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should leeches in society be allowed to benefit in the same manner as those that don't exploit the system for financial gain?

It's called capitalism. Welcome.

Instead of pissing and moaning about how MS and others are shafting open source software, maybe you should lobby to change patent law so that their alleged IP couldn't be patented.

No wait, that'd actually be productive, whereas it sounds like you and many others here would rather whine about it than do something about it.

Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible.

[DroopyStonx]

And that's the typical response "Why don't you lobby".

Well, genius, maybe you haven't realized that most of us don't have billions of dollars to persuade lawmakers with. ...or do you live in pretend land where politicians that can actually make a difference actually LISTEN to people as opposed to the groups and industries that support them?

They are cuckoo for cocoa puffs crazy

[Shivetya]

Quote ""Web access could come with a cultural flat fee," he said."

As if we don't have enough horrid artist because of all the government funding of such? Good art does not come because it was funded. Paying for NEW art must remain a voluntary action for the public. Otherwise you end up creating a cottage industry that exists only to suck of wealth.

DRM has many valid uses as do patents. Those ideas should be kept. Toss this mandatory taxation; read: the masses are to ignorant to know what art is; and I can see a lot of people supporting the position.

Re:They are cuckoo for cocoa puffs crazy

[RetroGeek]

As if we don't have enough horrid artist because of all the government funding of such? Good art does not come because it was funded. Paying for NEW art must remain a voluntary action for the public. Otherwise you end up creating a cottage industry that exists only to suck of wealth.

Welcome to the Canadian model of cultural identity:

"Financial support for these programs includes grants and contributions, bursaries, tax credits and other means."

Re:They are cuckoo for cocoa puffs crazy

[CRCulver]

Good art does not come because it was funded.

Quite wrong. Just take the case of IRCAM in Paris, which is lavishly funded by the French government. Some of the most important pieces in the art music of the last thirty years have come from there, Boulez' "...explosante-fixe...", Lindberg's "Joy", most of Saariaho's oeuvre, Unsuk Chin's "Xi", and so on.

Funding has also helped some talented by otherwise poor painters keep working in the U.S.; Basquiat might never have made it without funding.

Another link...

[Fungus King]

There's another article here for anyone who's interested.

TFA might have overstated it a bit - and they also say that it's not certain that it'll be put into the GPL either.

Re:Another link...

[tveidt]

Yeah. Heise.de reported on this very differently too. It said someone from the FSFE "suggested" to add this stuff.

The summary and especially the "will" is very misleading.

Taxation

[Daveznet]

Taxation will not solve anything. Taxing internet connections will just turn the taxing bodies into another OPEC type committee and eventually connections will be taxed to the same degree as gas is right now. I thought that the whole point of OSS is that its open and free for everyone to use whether or not you are a big corporation or not.

Re:Taxation

[DeepHurtn!]

Ummm...do you have any idea what OPEC is and what it does? Here's a clue: it has nothing to with the taxes you pay at the pump.

Re:Taxation

[Daveznet]

I know what OPEC does, and its not OPEC who taxes the gas its the government, but guess what, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Your government who taxes the gas is part of OPEC and its all tied together. You think the gas prices have anything to do with "supply and demand", Nope, notice how gas prices have gone up soo much since bush has gone into power? and how Bush's buddies have all doubled, tripled, quadrupled their fortunes? Its all tied together whether you want to believe it or not. Before OPEC oil was 2 dollars a barrel after 69 dollars. Same can be applied to this.

Au contraire!

[Spy der Mann]

This is EXACTLY what we need to fight for our rights. We've all seen how programmers are seen as less than a minority by people who take governmental decision.

Also, people are free to release their GPL'ed projects with whatever GPL license they prefer.

From TFA:

The idea is that if someone uses software patents against free software, that company or person loses the right to distribute that particular program and use it in their product, he added.

This means, in Joe sixpack's terms, that if SCO is suing companies because of patent stuff... SCO isn't allowed to use GPL 3 software. Doing so would be illegal for them.

So, companies are free to choose: Get rid of their "defensive patents", face lawsuits from the FSF, _OR_ switch to 100% proprietary products.

I think this is a very good idea! If the people in the government don't fight for our rights, it's about damn time we do!

(Read as: POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!)

Re:Au contraire!

[maxpublic]

Read as: POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

Put away the tye-dye and stop smoking so much fucking weed. The '60's are over with, and those of us with a few neurons left to rub together are damned glad of it.

Max

Re:Au contraire!

[alienw]

The problem with this approach would be that the free software movement is much smaller than the software patent movement. The GPL's patent clauses are already too strong for companies like IBM to consider using it, and making them stricter would not accomplish anything good.

Really bad idea

[Have Blue]

The most the GPL could reasonably demand is that it not be applied to software that contains said objectionable features. Making its use contingent on things with no obvious relationship to the subject of the license sets a very dangerous precedent- it's DRM and patents today, but what will Stallman want to forbid you doing tomorrow? Using Windows? Charging money for software? Voting for republicans?

A great deal of ex-commercial software that has been GPLed most likely could not have been GPLed had this restriction been in place. And it's very unlikely that any entity sitting on the fence regarding software patents and DRM is going to be swayed by whether or not they can use the GPL.

DRM can be good

[tjstork]

Is that DRM could conceivably used to enforce free software or to even have a system where an open source environment could actually pay its developers.

For example, if I were building a project, I could pay like $5 or something and download "printf" from another developer, $5 for a cool strcpy, and so on, and stitch together solutions on a per source file basis.

With each source file protected by DRM, I could theoretically use them as needed and the authors could actually get paid. The software would be open, that is, everyone could see the source. It would be free, that is, anyone could use it or modify it, but it would not be free as in beer.

I think the OSS community needs to rethink some of its hostility to DRM, because in DRM lies the keys to getting Developers paid all of the revenue from the products, and not shareholders.

no drm?

[cybergrunt69]

Hey, I'm all for getting rid of DRM, like in audio and video files - but taxing my internet connection to pay for it? Whether or not I view or download it, or if I even know it exists, I still have to pay for it? Are you kidding me?

I'm definately not in favor of software patents, but I think this is a step too far. If I read this right, TFA says if I patent software, then I can't use any free software. WTF? I see an odd case here and there where it may help, but overall I think it will hinder innovation.
Example: Let's say XYZ Widget Co puts out some awesome software that's totally free - maybe a diet version of their $$$ software. However, since it's hard(er) to make money on a free product, their bread-and-butter income is from a patented piece of software - monies come in based on seat licenses and support. Since they have a non free/OSS line of products, they can no longer use the free apps. Goodbye free/OSS product lines. Where's the business logic now?

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think this is a bit overboard.

This draft will never be more than a draft

[dfl]

FTA:

"Stallman will write a draft version of the new GPL by December, after which it will be evaluated by thousands of organizations, software developers and software users in 2006."

In other words, the story should say that a new *draft* of the GPL will... yada. yada, yada. And we can all think of thousands of powerful opponents who will not evaluate that draft favorably. It will never move past the draft phase.

and useless in Europe because...

[DisprinDirect]

...we can't patent software in Europe, only processes which may or may not be executed by a computer.

Freedom is not worth having if ... Re:"free"

[Slashdot_Gandhi]

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

Mahatma Gandhi

Feedback

[Knome_fan]

In fact, the feedback process started today:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3

Here's the announcement:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

Boy, am I glad that /. did not report on this trivial news, but instead on this well researched msnbc artile...

Re:Feedback

[jdh41]

nah, they're just angling for a dupe in the next few hours.

So much for freedom

[gatkinso]

Enough said about that.

not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

reuters story gets it a bit wrong: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/09/06/fsf_pa tent_gpl/

So... to protect Open Source Software...

[cnelzie]

...they are going to rewrite the GPL to shut more and more people out of being able to use GPL Software.

  Couldn't this effectively kill big money from being fed into OSS projects? I mean, doesn't IBM already own a shedload of software patents?

    Why oh why do they want to cut off their own noses to spite their face?

From Ghandi to Che?

[sTalking_Goat]

So they want go from "We know were right and our product is better, but see for yourself."
To "We know were right, but if you don't agree here's a metaphorical gun in the face to convince you."

Do these guys really think this going to make Big Software change its practises? Bad move, boys and girls. You can't win by playing their game.

MSNBC article is obsolete, misquotes the FSF

[FlorianMueller]

The MSNBC article is based on the first version of the Reuters report, which misquotes the FSF on the provisions concerning software patents. Reuters has meanwhile updated the story. Here's a few links to the new and corrected version of the story:
Washington Post
eWeek
Reuters.com

Re:MSNBC article is obsolete, misquotes the FSF

[110010001000]

Um, what should bother you is the following quote:

---
"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

"Web access could come with a cultural flat fee," he said.

-----

I think everyone should rethink their alliances that this point. The FSF is a very scary organization if they start supporting globally administered fees to support "free" content. Why copyrighted software, music, movies, etc should become "free" is beyond comprehension. Its obvious that the FSF has an agenda that they are hiding. I've always suspected that they are more concerned with free as in beer than they let on. The above quote certainly is disturbing.

Patent Binaries v Patent Source

[dextr0us]

I hope they're clear on patent binaries versus patented source.

    I don't know why patent binaries haven't caught on more, and maybe someone can fill me in... but don't you think copyrighted source and patented binaries would be a good idea?

    I mean you have your source that is artistic, but there's nothing artistic about binaries. Typically, they're just functional... more akin to something that would be patentable.

The Market Will Decide

[whatthef*ck]

Neither Stallman nor the FSF are the benevolent dictators of the open-source software movement. They can add whatever stupid stuff they want to the GPL, and it will have zero impact on code that's already been released under the existing GPL. And those starting new OSS projects will still be free to choose their license, even the current version (2) of the GPL.

My guess is that relatively few projects will choose a license that is sure to scare away the majority of enterprise users.

Horrible Idea

[cfulmer]

First of all, some of the open source players have started patenting software for defensive purposes. See, e.g., http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html . Do you really want to cut these players out?

Secondly, this is going to be a big barrier to adoption both of the GPL and of software under it -- what owner of a "software patent" is going to write GPL'd code or use it? Considering the number of such companies, this change will just about condemn the GPL to the trash heap.

From the front page of fsf.org

[dillon_rinker]

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

They want to deny some people Freedom 0, the ability to run the software; never mind viewing or editing the source. I fail to see how curtailing some people's access to software moves the world closer to software freedom for all. This reaction is the sort of thing I expect from the pragmatic OSI folks, not the idealistic FSF folks.

Re:From the front page of fsf.org

[Peaker]

It only restricts the freedoms of those that use their powers to restrict others.

Only those who choose to apply Software Patents become unacceptable users of Free Software, its an opt-in circle.

FUD

[nuggz]

Wow how newsworthy, yet another f'ing article on what the GPL might contain.

Many oppose changing the GPL from a copyright licence to a usage licence.
There are two reasons,
1. Copyright is easier to fight internationally.
2. Free as in freedom should include freedom of usage. Altering this IMO guts the core philosopy of the free software movement.

If you don't care about freedom, use open source instead.

GPL against patents =)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good thing that they are doing, but it might be the same as shooting themselves in the feet!
I like free soft, but money still rules more than inspiration!

Final straw...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well,
It's been nice. I think software development has gotten way too political and I really hate politics...

Between this patent stuff and the outsourcing, software developers are walking on a minefield. I think I'll put my ICAR cert to good use and go work for my brother in his bodyshop...

Software development was a lot more fun back when I was writing programs to help us play PnP AD&D, on my commodore 64... I think I'll go back to writing software for me and my buddies, as a hobby.

l8,
AC

Luckily, license upgrade is not automatic.

[Sir Pallas]

Maybe the draftes of this next revision have forgotten that popularity among corporate benefactors is essential to free software today. And what about companies that have patents but allow free software groups take advantage of those patents free of charge? What's so bad about DRM? The problem isn't DRM, per se; it's DRM that isn't open and isn't fair. It just seems like they're losing it over at the FSF. I thought the GPL was created to help protect the rights of software authors, not to wage a holy war.

Nobody freak out

[Jooly Rodney]

Just FYI, there have been no public drafts as yet and it sounds like Mr. Greve is just repeating what was said at the FSF meeting this year, which is that they are considering these things (i.e., patent-retaliation and DRM issues) for inclusion in the language of the new GPL. It's not just RMS working on this, by the way -- as many of you are aware, there are some extremely bright legal minds at the FSF that are working to make this license something you will actually want to use for the software you write.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jdhutchins]

I wonder what will replace it?
Probably GPL v2. For many projects, if you don't like the new GPL, just don't use (you do have to remove the "or any future version" clause as the linux kernel and others have already done though).

FUD?

[Anonymous Writer]

FTA...

"Software patents are clearly a menace to society and innovation. We like this to be more explicit. The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software. It's like a patent retaliation clause," Greve said.

Does this mean that if you own any software patents, you can't use GPL software? Or does it mean they are just including a clause in the GPL that prevents software patent restrictions from hindering GPL software, while allowing people to still apply them to proprietary licensed software? I have a suspicion that it is the latter, but the article just wasn't clear enough and took the quote out of context.

I like it.

[otis wildflower]

Yeah, I'm sure there's legitimate arguments against it, but it satisfies a sense of fair play that is positively limbic.

OTOH, there should be support for a MySQL-style multi-license scheme, where GPL'd code gets free use of patents and non-GPL'd code must pay for licenses.

Hm. Fragmented quoting...

[E-Sabbath]

Fragmented quoting, quoting out of context of an answer...
Quoting one man's ideas as if it will be the final answer of the new GPL...
MSNBC...
It's a troll. Sure, we'd _like_ it if these things were true, but this would be a grevious break with previous versions of the GPL. Probability low.
President of FSF Europe is an important man, sure, but he's not the one making the changes, and he may not even be commenting on what the probable changes are, just what he _wants_ the changes to be.

He may even realize that a lot of the changes can't happen, it's just his idea of the perfect world.

Fair Use, anyone?

[roman_mir]

So what is going to happen to the idea of Fair Use in Free Software?

The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software. It's like a patent retaliation clause. - and there I thought that Free Software is to be used Freely and maybe even for free by anyone.

I have software that is GPLed, I'll won't support these new changes.

Slashdot is FUDding here

[tveidt]

Totally misleading summary, it's not clear at all whether the GPL3 ""will"" include such stuff. Someone from the FSFE *suggested* it. Thanks a bunch Slashdot.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Shouldn't the GPL provide a reason for businesses, which are already skeptical of GPL'ed software, with MORE reasons to contribute, not less?

Instead, RMS decides that punishing the largest contributers is a pretty good idea.

So long, and thanks for all the code. So sad that you should have to go.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Queer Boy]

RMS decides that punishing the largest contributers is a pretty good idea.
So long, and thanks for all the code. So sad that you should have to go.

Because we all know those large contributors would have returned their code to the projects if the license didn't require them to do so.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we all know those large contributors would have returned their code to the projects if the license didn't require them to do so.

What's your point?

Businesses are, for the most part, reluctant to even USE GPL'ed software simply because they don't want to deal with the legal hassle. So, now, any GPL software released under version 3 will be unusable to any company with patents. And thus, not only will they not use that software, any contributions they may have made WILL NOT HAPPEN.

So, as the GP comment said... So long and thanks for all the code. IBM sure as hell won't touch any GPL v3 code, nor Novell, nor SGI...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[strider44]

What on earth are you talking about? All it says is that they might put in a clause saying "if you sue the developers of this software using a software patent then you can't use the software". Since IBM have opened up huge numbers of patents to Open Source I don't think that they're going to sue them anytime soon...

Microsoft has a clause that is similar that says "you can't sue the developers of this software" or something along those lines.

Making the GPL as evil as DRM

[Roskolnikov]

This looks like a good first step;

The DRM folks already have an eye aimed in the direction of the opensource folks; Its pretty obvious that most DRM removed is done so with the assistance of opensource and/or free/shareware.

A fair amount of funding for opensource projects come from companies that stand to gain something from the development that occurs and/or the good press provided; without patents much of what we use today (you like that fancy computer in front of you right)? wouldn't exist and/or wouldn't be so cheap that you could own it. This isn't really a defense for the kind of patents that have been filed; filing a patent on something because it seems that no one else has is a horrible thing (nintendo patents sanity comes to mind) but the system is set up to reward those who innovate.

and so I ramble but my point is this:

I've spent the good portion of 5 years trying to get the fortune 500 company I work for to openly accept GPL/GNU software as the good thing it is; a clause of this nature will most likely make all of the work a loss as this company regularly files patents and a good majority of them are accepted; Some will say this is a choice; I suspect this kind of approach will work, it will make successful companies look elsewhere for the tools they need and will prevent some of the good development being done from being released into the wild........

again, I ramble......

Re:Making the GPL as evil as DRM

[DroopyStonx]

The key idea here is SOFTWARE patents, which do nothing but insure a legal form of extortion for those who use them.

For example, look at what happened with Carmack's Reverse during Doom 3. Someone took a common sense approach at solving a problem and patented it, now anyone that uses this method has to pay up.

To put it bluntly, it's bullshit and is the perfect example of manipulating the patent system and turning it into legal forms of extortion.

Each and every software "IP" that has been patented has been done with this idea in mind and it is completely runing everything that could be. If I am wrong, please post a counter example.

As long as it's not a SOFTWARE patent, you're good to go, which kinda throws out the argument: "well, the computer you're using wouldn't be as cheap as it is without patents.."

Re:Making the GPL as evil as DRM

[Roskolnikov]

Again, overall I think the patent system needs a lot of reform; but innovations only appear to be common sense after they've been introduced; and my statement (not arguing) about cheap commodity hardware still holds true, even at a low level there is software in there; and going forward much of what defines the hardware is the software. The real problem with software patents as I see it is defining at what point is it patentable, your example is valid, Carmack was the first to really make something of the idea but Bilodeau and Songy beat him to the punch by 3 years, Carmack might have been able to get this reversed but I am pretty sure the blackmail fee's were less then the legal challange for something that really could have been done a number of ways.

Correction

[palfrey]

Better to read the Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/06/fsf_paten t_gpl/) where they say

He was speaking to El Reg after an article on Reuters quoted him as saying that anyone who patented software would be prevented from using free software. Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software."

How to get involved?

[Brunellus]

Will someone please post information for those of us who are concerned about this revision, and how we can get involved in maybe influencing the final document, if that's at all possible?

Personally, I'm distressed about all of this. What happens to corps with large patent portfolios who have been supporting free software up to now?

Although, I guess even if this goes through, I expect it to be ignored. FSF can promulgate licenses all it wants, but that doesn't stop individual developers from continuing to release their software on terms of their own choosing....so maybe there's time to be relieved.

Patent holders need not be excluded from GPL

[scharkalvin]

If IBM holds software patents BUT grants an open ended license to all to use such patents ONLY in GPL'ed software then such a clause in the GPL should not apply. In this case the patent holder would protect himself from others making a profit off HIS patent, but NOT block open use of the patent on a level playing field.

Not than anybody is going to be so rightious to do such a thing........

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Zangief]

Good old GPL 2.0 maybe?

Sounds like....

[TheCabal]

Sounds like the GPL is getting to be as restrictive and the patents they seem to be complaining about.

When you take something Free (as in speech) and place any kind of restriction on it, it is no longer Free. Then it's just free (as in beer), with value to nobody.

Re:This is cutting off your nose to spite your fac

[Anonymous Coward]

This off-topic but are you not confusing free software with open source software?

Forking the GPL

[tbo]

As a developer of (specialized, scientific) Free Software, I have to say this sounds obnoxious and stupid, and I predict it leads to a "forking" of the GPL. The article was thin on details, but if it's as it sounds, I will not license my software under the new GPL. The next commit to my project's CVS is going to be changing

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 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.

to

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

I hate software patents as much as the next guy, and I think a lot of DRM implementations are stupid and evil, but it's not such an absolute that I want to tether my software to an ideological fight against those things.

For one, I *can* see some cases where DRM is not totally evil. Apple's iTunes Music Store (iTMS) is a good example--they struck a decent balance between usability and convincing the music execs the service was safe. Now, I know people have legitimate objections to the iTMS DRM (FairPlay), but if Apple hadn't gone with DRM, the iTMS would never have happened. I don't think Apple deserves to be penalized for that--they've done the best with the cards they were dealt. Apple has also made significant contributions to the Free Software community--do we really want to shut them out?

As another example, I do research in quantum computing. Suppose I develop some sort of new process or technology relating to quantum computing, and my university pushes for a patent on it. In the world of quantum computing, what is "software" and what is "hardware" is very fuzzy. Could I get shut out of using GPL'd software over that? I might not even have a choice about whether to patent or not--I had to sign a patent agreement when I enrolled here.

The FSF should stick to their original mission for the GPL. By trying to make it too broad, they're going to hurt everyone.

Oh, and "cultural flat fee" with internet access? What the hell? This is like Canada's levy on blank recordable media that goes to pay Canadian "artists" like Celine Dion. I can't think of a worse system for music than putting the government in charge of it. If you thought the RIAA was bad, just wait until Uncle Sam is in charge. Get ready for the "War on Inappropriate Rap Lyrics", the "War on Peer-to-Peer Networks", etc.

Who says it's "software"?

[karl.auerbach]

Many patents make claims that could be mechanised in software or in something more tangible. If patents avoid saying "this can be done only in software" than I don't see how the new GPL could be written to distinguish "bad" patents from "good" patents.

But GPL version X is, to my mind, going to have a hard time taking off. Any piece of software already covered by an existing GPL version can not move to a new license unless the consent is obtained from each and every contributor (or the code from non-consenting contributors is removed.)

This is probably a misunderstanding (FUD)...

[ratta]

about what the GPL actually means.
Probably the GPL will state that you cannot enforce patents or apply DRM to a something that you are releasing as GPL, and i think that this would make a lot of sense today.

MSNBC is trolling

[burnin1965]

The headline should read - FSF Announces the GPL Version 3 Development and Publicity Project

And they should have read the announcement themselves to understand the purpose of the project:

http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

One person in Europe does not represent the entire Free Software movement in Europe let alone every global voice in the Free Software movement.

I do not agree with many of the beliefs and ideas of Georg Greve as I'm sure many others do not and will have a say in the writing of the GPLv3.

The clowns at MSNBC chose to post an article with a headline and quotes that would portray the Free Software movement the way they would like the rest of the world to see it. Their objective is not journalism or truth but to polarize those who do not have the time or understanding to discover the truth for themselves.

burnin

Re:MSNBC is trolling

[The Bungi]

MSNBC is just regurgitating Reuters. They even modified their copy slightly so that the original paragraph reads "uses patents against free software" which, while still wrong, is closer to the spirit of the FSF's press release. And they bothered to get a quote from a software patent advocate.

The clowns at MSNBC chose to post an article with a headline and quotes that would portray the Free Software movement the way they would like the rest of the world to see it. Their objective is not journalism or truth but to polarize those who do not have the time or understanding to discover the truth for themselves.

Wow, you seem very angry. Black helicopters bother you much?

Re:MSNBC is trolling

[burnin1965]

MSNBC is just regurgitating Reuters.

MSNBC is responsible for whatever they release whether they are regurgitating or not. Perhaps the Reuters story fits their opinion of the FSF so they ran it.

And I guess I wasn't clear in my last post. No matter where this news story originated it does not appear to be a FSF press release. Look for yourself, no really, look this time...

http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/news.en.html

http://www.fsf.org/news

The press release from the FSF websites states they are organizing a project to write a new version of the GPL, so I guess that part is correct, however, there is no mention of writing off any businesses which "patent software or use anti-piracy technology".

I do not doubt there are open source advocates who would support the idea and it is possible this would be the outcome of the project. However, this is definitely not what was in the press release from the FSF.

So I look at the significant differences between the press release and the news article and I see an obvious attempt at agitation in the news article from the headline to the quotes. Yeah, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid then some poor sheepish sap who buys what they're selling.

burnin

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[nacturation]

BSD license. Works well for OpenSSH.

MSNBC || GPL :: Al-Jazeerah || U.S. constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like Al-Jazeerah reporting that the U.S. constitution will soon require the murder of all people of Arabic descent.

Yes, there may be some extremists who would suggest it, but it's extremely unlikely; and the interests of the reporting entity are in presenting the extremists as the mainstream.

Line up the shark

[TheConfusedOne]

Get Stallman a set of skis and a leather jacket.

It's time for the show.

Honestly, if this is what they plan on doing with the GPL then you're going to see everyone abandoning the GPL (at least the new version).

Patents and DRM may in fact be a bad thing and they certainly are being abused but this move will just ensure that no one can use the GPL.

Better idea....

[Danathar]

A better idea would be to modify the clause somewhat to say that any organization that uses GPL software gives up it's right to sue anyone/group for over patent violations in GPL software.

This basically restricts an entity (group/company/person) from taking out patent and then suing the author(s) of GPL software (assuming the first group has used GPL software) over patent violations...

I think I was redundant there...but I think you get the picture.

GPoliticaL

[Doc Ruby]

The GPL is a license. It's an agreement between the parties using the software: producer and consumer (including subsequent developer). What does that have to do with the political agenda of "fighting software patents"? The GPL protects the software it covers from being patented. Its distributors have no further rights beyond the use of the software they provide under the GPL. Certainly not rights to tell the user what they can do with other software that doesn't touch the GPL'd software.

I share the political agenda that opposes software patents. But the GPL is absolutely inappropriate for use in that political battle. How does antipatent clause keep the GPL'd software any more free? Of course it doesn't - and it doesn't keep the user any more free, either. It removes their freedom to do as they please with other code, even code they write themselves. This is an outrageous political stunt, a transformation of the merely legal GPL to a political weapon in a larger, only tangentially related war.

What happens when Chinese software makers include a license that says users must not "oppose the will of the people, the rule of the Politburo"? What happens when Pakistani programmers require that users submit to the will of Allah before linking to their libraries? What happens when Texan programmers require users to register Republican before distributing their patched version of the new CRM package? Probaly, everyone will ignore those political terms. Maybe everyone will refuse to use the package. Either of those responses to a political GPL will destroy the effectiveness of the GPL, almost entirely a voluntary honor system just beginning to pick up momentum. For the sake of our code, the GPL, and our freedom, we must not let them screw us all with a political GPL that leverages our freedom into enlising us in their political agenda.

Re:GPoliticaL

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Troll
    50% Insightful

Why do TrollMods hate the GPL? Because their politics infests their every move.

So if the GPL V3 uses has this clause

[SocietyoftheFist]

...don't use it. Seems like a pretty simple solution unless I'm missing something where software licensed under V1 or V2 has to automatically accept the terms of V3.

Don't misunderstand

[gr8_phk]

I believe the intent is to clarify the following: Taking free software, adding patented features, releasing, and then enforcing those patents (on code derived from yours) is in violation of the GPL. You'd be putting additional restrictions on the use of that software - although not by explicitly adding license terms. Adding restrictions like this is a violation of the GPL, and I think they just want the license to automaticlly terminate when you enforce the patent (i.e. violate the terms of the license). They will not try to revoke your right to use all free software - just that for which you violated the license by enforcing a patent you put into that software.

i.e. putting a patented feature in Free software effectively allows free use of that patent in free software and derived works. This is already many peoples interpretation of the license. They just want to clarify it.

This is from The Register

[fjf33]

It doesn't look too drastic. What it says is that everyone licensing under the GPL allows everyone else to defend themselves against lawsuits due to Patent or other IP related lawsuits by revoking their right to a license under the GPL. Essentially u sue us we take our ball and go home. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/06/fsf_patent _gpl/

alternate article

[digitalderbs]

Here is an alternate article on the issue.

From the article (bolded emphasis is mine) :
One option that the FSF is considering, Moglen said, will make it necessary for companies that distribute GPL software to pledge that they're also explicitly giving the right to use the patents found in their code.

Agreed. More harm than good.

[Halo-]

There is no way a company IBM's size has so many projects and patents there is no way they could comply with this. For example, most (all?) Thinkpads have a DRM chip in them. Sure, these are technically Lenovo now, but still. Ironically, the only support of the DRM functions I'm aware of is via a Linux kernel module with was/is made freely available by IBM and is open source. (Dunno about the license offhand)

And what about the customers of companies who insist (in some cases for good reason) on either DRM or closed source? People like the military like the idea of a hardware-validated OS very much, and have the bucks to make or break even the biggest players. And a lot of customers don't want the source of their apps made public. Companies can't afford to tell these customers: "sorry, we can't write the code you ask for"

I loathe and detest abuses of DRM and really don't think software should be patentable. And while the GPL is becoming increasingly powerful, it's got no where near the power to force a fundamental change in how the industry works. It's a nice dream, but it's just going to piss off the corporate-types which are just now starting to come around.

Free (to your friends) == Not Free

[virtigex]

Software that is "free" to only a subset of organizations is not free. Such a clause would put the GPL in the same class as any other restrictive license, thereby defeating it's whole purpose.
I remember that, about 10 years ago, the FSF was unhappy at Apple and such using FSF software and tried to limit it's use at such companies. However, any wording (except maybe "software cannot be used by XYZ corporation") that attempts to restrict use to only a certain subset of orgaizations only serves to decrease its appeal to all organizations.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[MindStalker]

When you create software you choose its license. Many people will probably continue to use the old GPL simply to avoid this "feature". IBM for example wouldn't dare touch this new GPL. This will most likly cause the kernel to use the old GPL, as well as any project that hopes to get corperate help.

Communism at its best

[MooseTick]

I didn't know there was something wrong with creating a product and trying to protect the investment you made in it.

It looks like if you ever tried to make a living creating new software techniques you should sign your innovations over to the masses. That sounds like the communist ethos to me.

I'm all for shareware/freeware. This technique will do anything but encourage people to share and will make it impossible for most packages using it to gain widespread acceptance. My understanding is that if I own ANY software patents I won't be able to use any GPL2 software. That implies that if I don't own any not but some day will, I will have to discontinue using that software. That sounds like a big hassle if I choose a software package that is distributed around my corporation. If somehow we develop a 50kb 3 hour HDVD compression algorythm and plan on protecting that discovery via the patent process, we could have to change out all of our email, OS, x software because it was licensed under the GPL2. Great idea!

Re:Communism at its best

[kindbud]

I didn't know there was something wrong with creating a product and trying to protect the investment you made in it.

There isn't, and no one suggested there was (apart from you). But to address your strawman anyway, protecting your investment is an inherently socialist process. Since it is society that is protecting your investment, society ought to get something out of doing that. Else, why should society bother protecting your investment? What's in it for us? If your doodad is so useful, somebody else will invent it, so we cannot be satisfied with the mere use of your invention as compensation for giving you exclusive rights. We could withhold exclusive rights and the thing would get invented anyway, since it is so useful.

And if your invention is not that useful, what is it you want from us, again?

Re:Communism at its best

[MooseTick]

I've taken a logic class or two myself and that is a legitamite argument. The GPL2 as stated in the original post implies that all software patents are bad. Why should I create something useful but easily reproducable if I can't gain any benefit? I shouldn't. That's why the constitution gives me the ability to patents ideas. Society will eventually gain ownership of my idea, but in the meantime I have a legally enforcable monopoly to payback and possibly profit from my great idea. Its easy to say that if its so useful someone else will invent it. Do you think a cure for AIDS, flying cars, boneless chickens,etc will come about because someone has some free time? No. Many big companies will spend millions of pesos to solve those problems. They need to be assured that they will be able to make their inventment money back if they do hit on a solution. Otherwise, why should they even try? Even if someone would eventually invent product x, there is a clear value that it could benefit society if that product were invented at an earlier date. Just think how much more advanced we would be if someone would have invented the printing press 500 years earlier? Obviously patents wouldn't have motivated that, but what if today's equlivent of the printing press was not being sought because it cost a lot of money and there was no was to recoup that investment without some sort of protection?

This is absurd

[drwho]

This really angers me. To think that at one time I actually interviewed for a job at the FSF! Anyhow, I think that many, if not most, software patents are bogus, but the idea of a software patent is not. What we need is to fix the system, not do away with it.

The DRM stuff bothers me as well, but mostly in their method of compensation for artists. This method smacks of government-supported art and that's just not good. I hate most of the pop culture out there, why should I have to pay for it? Why should I enrich the crappy pop stars? Who decides what artist is worthy of being paid for their work, and how much they should be paid? I'd rather things continued they way they are, and have DRM, than have this Government Art shoved down my throat.

If this is actually put into play, and infects my linux machines, I will convert to a BSD system. I've played with BSDs in the past but always come back to Linux...but this could be the breaking point.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[NickFortune]

From TFA:

Stallman will write a draft version of the new GPL by December, after which it will be evaluated by thousands of organizations, software developers and software users in 2006.

So it doesn't look like we need panic just yet. The draft isn't yet written, and there's going to be plenty of time to offer feedback once that happens.

The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it. The new license will be saying something like: "Hey, you can have this candy as long as you don't take any from those guys"

hmmm... this is from the current version of the GPL:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

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.

Still, I agree there are concerns. The whole "tax the internet to pay artists" sceheme needs a lot details working out before I'll agree to that. Greive only said "could" and not should though, so I'm tempted to the conclusion that he's being quoted out of context.

But I expect a lot of the programs licenced under GLP2 "or any later licence" may end up thinking carefully about those words if GPL3 does look to go too far off the deep end.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Titus B. Otch]

Well, we do have alternatives: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

However, you do reach a point where so many revisions, albeit GPLv1, v2, LPGL, BSD, et cetera, make it confusing for us developers with no background in law.

By the way, taxing internet users?! Good luck with that one...

The kernel...

[rongage]

Um... wouldn't this work against the Linux Kernel as well?

As we have seen in the past, there are probably some 200+ patented technologies embedded within the Linux Kernel. One we know about is RCU(Read/Copy/Update). There are no doubt others...

Since the kernel contains patented technology, does this mean that the kernel can not be covered under the GPL? Hmm... maybe Stallman *IS* trying to do us a favor...:)

Alternatives for patent holders?

[fbg111]

I see a lot of threads assume that this will force patent holders to choose GPL or their patents, and that they will naturally choose their patents, but there may be another alternative. What if such companies, like IBM, who are supportive of OSS and the GPL, open-source their patents or something to the same effect. I'm no lawyer so I can't speak to the details, but could IBM choose to "give" their software patents to OSS, making them freely available under the new GPL? IBM's patents would then still be protected from use by competitors like MS who choose their patents over the GPL, while becoming freely available to other companies who open-sourced their own patents. It seems like it could be a big win-win-win for any company involved, plus innovation in general, especially if enough companies agreed to this. If Stallman can get such support from a critical mass of corporations, he will have single-handedly reformed the US patent system, making an end-run around Congress.

Taxing Your Internet Connection

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxing the Internet is BULLSHIT. That's the problem with the Open Source crowd, right when you think they are about to take a gigantic step forward, they promptly trip themselves.

It's stupid because you'd never be able to monitor it with the introduction of open/public Wi-Fi among other technologies coming out. Mainly it's stupid on PRINCIPAL alone, taxing the very institution that gives you the power to distribute your ideas.

The Internet, above all else, is the world's largest public plateform for ideas, speaking, presenting, discovering, delivering. Taxing it would be like supporting DRM'd Internet.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!! This stinks of elitest nerdism.

Re:Taxing Your Internet Connection

[SpacePunk]

Naw, by espousing a tax it is communist nerdism.

Re:Taxing Your Internet Connection

[Anonymous Coward]

well... speed limits and fines are imposed for speeding because a minority speeds and kills people by doing so.

How is a tax imposed because a minority steals all their content and software any different?

In a way it kind of makes sense. I'd much rather pay a $40 a month tax and get all my music, movies, and software for no extra charge. It's actually not a bad idea on first examination.

It would:
1. make all downloads legal
2. be a hella good deal
3. artists and other creative people would get paid
4. people are just going to take it anyway, with a tax they'd have to pay for it like the rest of us do now (or are we the minority?)
5. it would keep 12 year olds from being taken to court as criminals for downloading music.
6. it would put iTunes out of business (Best part : P)
7. You'd be able to get the latest and greatest in entertainment minutes after it left the recording studio.

And you have a problem with this because...? 2 cds cost $30-40. You could have 20 for the same price. I just paid $50 for BF2... and had to finagle it out of a clerk that was saving the last copy for a buddy that had probably already downloaded a cracked copy.

Of course its a Birkenstock, magic smelly stone, tree hugging fantasy, and would never work. What's the incentive to make better content if everyone gets paid equally whether it's crap or not? When does an artist stop getting paid? 30 days after release? There would need to be some sort of time limit...

You think people are churning out garbage now? LMFAO wait til there is no incentive to do the work.

I think it stinks of bongwater and kind bud much more than elitest nerdism.

L8,
AC

Don't get your panties all in a twist!

[Danathar]

There are going to be ways to write this so it's inclusive.

For instance it could be written in such a way that it only punishes if a GPL user sues another GPL user for patent violation.

That way a completely commercial organization with NO GPL software in use could go su-happy and take anybody they want to court, but somebody who benefits from GPL software...as long as they don't sue the authors of GPL software can use it as much as they want.

Basically write it ONLY to punish Evil(TM) action only.

On incorrect and hyperbolic redefinition of words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the fact that, in TFA, the relevant quote wasn't even a direct quote, and came from one person:

Please use a dictionary and look up the word "relevant." It is just stupid how this word is being used nowadays, especially by people who want to dismiss their opponents without an argument.

Something is considered "relevant" with respect to other concepts/situations. You might say that a car's gas mileage is relevant when considering its cost. You might say a civilian death toll is relevant when considering the benefits of a war. You might say the cost of a necklace is irrelevant when you're a multi-billionaire. These are all valid uses of the concept of "relevance."

You cannot, without sounding like a total media-drone press-release parrot, say "that politician is irrelevant" or "this product is irrelevant."

RMS + shotgun

[Mr. Underbridge]

Let's just say that due to errant marksmanship, Stallman doesn't have any toes left. As such, I'm dismayed but not surprised in the least by this development

However, the more likely scenario (compared to IBM just quitting Linux) is that the Linux kernel would continue to be distributed via the old GPL - with one possible modification - the "or any newer version" clause. Not sure how that would affect newer versions of many of the GNU tools released with most versions of linux. I expect much forking.

After coming up with a good idea, the FSF has continued to push itself to the fringes of relevance. Cutting itself off from its largest product (Linux) would finish the job.

Re:RMS + shotgun

[Anonymous Coward]

The linux kernel explicitly says that the 'or any newer version' isn't allowed in this instance.

Very Poor Idea

[originalhack]

Many companies contribute software to OSS software while simultaneously patenting their own work in other areas. Most of the "good guys" maintain these portfolios exclusively to force other patent-holders into cross-license agreements to avoid being instantly put out of business when a (bad guy) competitor pops up with a patent. Driving these companies away from OSS is not a good idea.

Penalizing companies that engage in abusive behavior is worth considering. Limiting your friends to only those who have no strength at all is a bad idea.

Ugh.

[Mr Z]

One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:

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.

So, for instance, jzIntv, my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.

Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1, 2, 3, 4 software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.

Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.

--Joe

Two points

[file-exists-p]

Two things here:

1/ I think this "kind of BS" is far less revolutionary than the "kind of BS" the original GPL was in its time.

2/ Corporations need open-source, not the opposite.

I share this attitude of restricking the rights of people who try to prevent me from coding certain algorithms. They hurt me, I don't want them to use for free the stuff I make. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Re:Two points

[Nimrangul]

Corporations need nothing from open source, they've developed software on their own just fine you know.

Besides, if the FSF pushes like this, the corporations will just move elsewhere. Suddenly you'll find AIX becoming the operating system that IBM pushes or perhaps it will move to a BSD or simply fork the code they want and keep it GPL2 in stead of moving it to GPL3 ever.

You're selfish, that's fine, don't help people because it's nice, just help people you like. There's no rules against that - but that doesn't mean people will put up with it or deal with you at all if you do.

Re:Two points

[file-exists-p]

You're selfish, that's fine, don't help people because it's nice, just help people you like. There's no rules against that - but that doesn't mean people will put up with it or deal with you at all if you do.

:)

Being nice to people I think are nice is the best strategy in the prisonner dilemma. This behavior is known as "a tit for a tat". Your "nice" corresponds in that game to the strategy usually named "sucker".

Cheers,

--
Go Debian!

Misquotes Managed -- see The Register

[alanQuatermain]

The Register had a story on this earlier in the day, complete with a clarification from FSF Europe president Georg Greve:

Reuters quoted him as saying that anyone who patented software would be prevented from using free software. Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software."

So, not "companies using software patents lose rights to GPL software," more like "if a company uses patents to attack $GPL_SOFT_PACKAGE, they forfeit rights to $GPL_SOFT_PACKAGE". Sounds fairly reasonable to me. If you want to use the software, agree that you won't use patents to kill it off, whilst internally nabbing the copyrighted code for your own (redistributed) products.

-Q

Re:Misquotes Managed -- see The Register

[horza]

If we've learned anything from tax laws, it's that the more complicated you make things to close loopholes, the more you ones you open. The GPL is understandable and to date enforcable. Any deviation from the KISS principle is risky, but I trust Richard Stallman to investigate the potential repercussions and to proceed with trepidation.

Phillip.

Free as in beer- Rights of end users.

[PhYrE2k2]

This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license. This obviously doesn't solve the problem because you can always use older GPLed software and modify it yourself to keep it up to date. The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it. The new license will be saying something like: "Hey, you can have this candy as long as you don't take any from those guys"

In a way yes, but in another more acurate way- no. You are thinking Free in monetary ways, and not in terms of freedom. Yes freedom to do what you want with it is important, but .

What do I mean? If I take your GPL'd software package, modify it to include DRM, that removes the rights of the end users of the product from having unencumbered software (not to mention few DRM schemes will actually be free from patents and governing bodies).

While the ability to use GPL'd code is a freedom for the developer, the developer takes away the freedom of use and distribution of its output (data files) from the end users.

-M

BSD

[banetbi]

Yet another reason to stick with BSD, they don't mind if I make money...

Wrong reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I have similar rules
People who don't stop fully at stop signs or don't use their turn signals. I make a list and then I go and picket their house and harrass their neighbours.
Also, people who have beliefs that I don't agree with...I make sure I rip up their morning papers sitting on their door step.

Can I betatest ?

[thrill12]

I would love to betatest this GPL V3. Just on one of my projects, just to see how well it holds out in the real world.

I wonder if there is a draft somewhere which I can already stamp on my product ?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[FireFury03]

This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license.

You can't retrospectively change licences. And indeed, software authors can happilly still release software under the old GPL if they want.

The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it.

No, really it doesn't (in the case of the GPL). GPL'd software gives people the freedom to do what they want with it within limits. If I was allowed to do what I want with it with no limits then it would be fine for me to include "free" code in a closed product and sell it, which clearly the GPL forbids.

I do worry though that this new licence may make the FSF look like raving loonies to a lot of the world (more than they do already). They will need to word it very carefully. The current GPL is there to protect the authors of the software from companies ripping it off - it sounds like the new licence will be designed to protect parties who are completely unrelated to the project that is being licenced and that doesn't sound like a particularly sane idea to me.

Down the road, with GPL v. 4

[93 Escort Wagon]

Can't wait until version 4 of the GPL comes out in a few years - I hear it will codify the creation of a "GNU/fatwa" to be used against anyone who's ever used a product that wasn't released under a previous version of the GPL.

A good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree that those who develop software to a model that opposes peoples' freedoms, should not benefit from the work of the people.
Patents have been a disaster. They only serve to stifle innovation. Organisations that use Patents against the common good should not have the right to access any of the labours of the community that they attack.
Patents are the spawn of the ideological right, they neither encourage innovation, nor promote success. The fact that Patents may be awarded for the most trivial and stupid ideas clearly shows that whole system for what it is - a shabby right wing system to make the richest organisations richer.

you're a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already a bunch of GPL-/like/ liscences for ppl that want to be open, but not really. BSD, MIT, etc. GPL is the alltruistic liscence that started it all and when the EFF needs to put the screws to the industry, sometimes they have to push back a little.
This fucking Rocks.

Patent Reciprocity

[sourcery]

A "Patent Reciprocity" clause would be far superior. Example language: "Your license to use any and all software licensed under the GPL is contingent upon your agreeing to permit any and all software patents you ever own to be used free of any charge in the implementation of any software licensed under the GPL (so that usage of such software obligates no one to pay any royalties, fees or other compensation to you for the usage of any of your patents.)"

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license.

Correct. Section 9 of the GPL reads:

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 versio nis 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 hte 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.

So, this threat only has teeth if the latest version of the GPL does away with this retroactivity. It would have to allow users to elect only a version including the "patent punishment" clause.

But that's not the biggest issue. Here's the biggest issue: Does the "patent punishment" clause trigger if the company patents (A) software related to the GPLed software, or (B) any kind of software?

Either option has issues:

(A) If the clause only triggers for software derived from the GPLed code, then that's fair and straightforward. It's also completely redundant with Section 6 of the current GPL:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Thus, this option is non-newsworthy.

(B) If it's a threat to punish companies that seek any software patent, then this raises a host of untenable issues. Obvious problems:

• It's really difficult to characterize "software patents." Some patents clearly claim a computer-implemented algorithm; most don't (in part, because the USPTO was rejecting such claimed inventions out of hand as "nonstatutory" until about 1998.) The difference between a "process" and a "computer-implemented process" is infinitely gray.
• Virtually every large software company has patents on software. The world's largest software patentee, by far, is IBM - a strong Linux advocate. Patents are acquired for a variety of reasons, including defensive purposes. The critical issue isn't whether or not a company patents software, but what it does with those software patents. Simply punishing all "software patentees" is an untenable oversimplification.
• I recognize that the Slashdot view of software patents is that Microsoft wants them in order to protect its fat, bloated monopoly. That's not untrue. But another beneficiary of software patents - arguably the most important one - is the small tech startup. And since cash-starved startups are more likely to use GPLed software than established firms, this penalty clause disproportionately impacts startups. In effect, this would discourage innovation and promote tech stagnation.
• This penalty clause would be a huge blow to the free software movement. Remember when BillG began touting the GPL as a "virus" that threatened to eviscerate companies' IP? This would lend much credence to that argument, and would send tech companies running away in droves.

Thus, this option is extremely problematic. It probably poses a much greater threat to small companies, and GPLed software itself, than to the stereotypical "bad guys" in the software patent biz. You can almost hear the industry fat cats rubbing their hands in glee, muttering, "Yes, please go ahead and kill the concept of GPL."

- David Stein

All's fair in War and GPL?

[thewiz]

W went and retaliated against Saddam not because of oil, WMDs, being evil, but because Saddam tried to assassinate W's dad.

Now people want to modify the GPL to retaliate against people who patent software? Maybe the people who want to change the GPL should see how retaliation is working for W and reconsider.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Re:That depends

[symbolic]

I haven't seen how the proposed license is worded, and until it is actually released, we can all speculate on what it MIGHT say. I'd like to think that Stallman is intelligent enough to make allowances for those who support Linux and and free software. It would be sheer foolishness to do otherwise,

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[moro_666]

>>>> All software should be FREE!
>>>>
>>>> So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.

-----
yea right kiddie, you are probably just another of those free software users who has never spent sleepless night behind a computer trying to make a living from it.

programming is work as is anything else where people use their mind to create something from nothing. now if i really decide to write something for free, then this is *charity*.

would you go to a car factory or to a food market and tell them that "hey dudes, i want your cars/food for free!" , they would be pretty sure to classify you as a nutcase.

opensource free software is great, yes, i like to use it too (heck, i run debian and ubuntu every where i go), but everything has it's limits.

if you invent a superior antiwind shield for automobiles that is 50% better than the ones used right now, would you just go to car makers and say, hey, take it for free ? or would you prefer to charge some millions for it at first ?

it's the same with software, if someone writes code that indexes a database/filesystem 33% faster than anyone could do before, they have the right to ask money for it. weather they do it or not is up to them.

ofcourse if i write a patch or a simple program like some irc client or webserver addon, i dont go running around and screaming patents-profit-yada-yada , but there are pieces of software that deserve patents and i dont think you (according to you attitude here) are in any position to judge the authors of these special software pieces.

summary : free software is great, patenting yellow buttons is bad, patenting really complex pieces of software is actually pretty damn right, not everything you can think of should be free.

Lets bet... :)

[ovit]

How long till we hear from Linus that the kernel will no longer be GPL'd...

I bet it happens within 3 days of the official announcement of the terms of this license...

        td

Re:Lets bet... :)

[Creepy Crawler]

Good luck.

If you dont understand, you probably have never read the license. SO you're stupid.

Re:Lets bet... :)

[ovit]

Actually, I have read the GPL a number of times...

Have you?

Furthermore, were you born yesterday? The relationship between Linus and Stallman has been strained for years (ever hear of the Linux / GNU-LINUX debacle)... Ever notice that the GPL included with the kernel sources includes a blurb from Linus that "Qualify's" the entire document?

And OSDL...

[rumblin'rabbit]

OSDL is a consortium whose purpose is to advance open-source software, and is a major component in the development of Linux (Linus Torvalds works for them).

I'm sure many of the companies paying for OSDL own software patents. The idea that these companies would be shut out from using GPL software is so ridiculous that I question the veracity of the article.

Wrong idea

[MetalliQaZ]

If any Linux zealot ever engages in a debate with me about why Linux not taking over the planet, or that big business is forcibly holding down the OSS movement, I will simply point to this and say that the people behind the GPL don't seem to grasp how the world really works. I agree that software patents are bad, but I assure you this is the wrong way to go about changing it. These people seem to go out of their way to restrict themselves into obscurity.

-d

Re:Wrong idea

[MetalliQaZ]

They don't like it because it is true :P

-d

Un-Enforceable

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how can this be enforced?
The article is vague, but my interpretation is that there will be language in the license that says if you have any IP, proprietary software, you can't use open source covered by the GPL?
(i.e. I can't develop a closed-source app on Linux?)
Or am I missing something?
I have a strong suspicion something like what is being suggested would not stand up in court. IP can't be taken away with a licensing agreement; the GPL can't own anything it didn't own to begin with.
For example, what gives you the right to think the table saw you sold me can't be used to produce furniture I sell on the open market? Sure, I can't slap a sticker on the saw and call it my own product, but the furniture?

Who owns MSNBC?

[Terri416]

Don't believe everything you read.

'penalties against those who patent software or use anti-piracy technology.' I think not.

It may (or may not) address these issues, but I don't think it'll punish users.

Has Everybody Fogotten the...

[BigBlueSwope]

MS of MSNBC... Sheesh!

Market Share, strategy, hypocrisy

[drenehtsral]

    A) Isn't the "gain market share and then change the rules" approach one of the main complaints that leads people to go to Open Source over commercial solutions?

    B) If say, for instance, Linux were to adopt this new version of the GPL (assuming this clause ever manages to get it's way in there) it would not be a hard migration path for everybody to switch to BSD.

    C) Even if changing the rules mid-flight wasn't sort of a microsoft-ish thing to do, does GNU/Linux and all of the conglomerated applications surrounding it (and making up the core of Free Software that is used on a daily basis) hold enough market share that the GPL drafters could make the case in the marketplace that it's worth ditching a proven profitable business model in exchange for continued use of a somewhat replacable product (see point B).

    In either case, it looks (to me) like this is just chest-pounding. Even if it goes through, the beautiful thing about the whole free software concept is that a fork from current-version GPL'd software could be maintained under a sane (no heavy political clauses) version of the license and we'll see which one the marketplace and usership embraces.

Exactly the political BS I was hoping to avoid

[bugnuts]

Doing such a maneuver is a political statement, and nothing else. And like most political statements, I don't necessarily support your view of the world. The hip culture helped produce a nice, open license. But now RMS sounds like he's trying to enforce a hip culture, not a software license. Screw that.

If this does turn out to be indeed true, I will not be using successive GPLs, and will only use previous versions. And hell, I'll add my own clause that successive GPL versions cannot be used on my code.

Anti-IP fundamentalism is wrong track

[FlorianMueller]

In the original version of the story, both statements (the one on software patents and the one on DRM) are disconcerting. In the corrected one, the patent thing is less problematic than before, and the DRM statement seems to have been right in the first place.

In the new version of the story, you can find a couple of quotes from me.

Let me additionally clarify that I don't want to raise general doubts concerning the FSF because it seems they're just brainstorming at this stage. I for my part believe that free and open-source software will do better if it's not perceived by politicians and by corporate decision-makers to be an anti-commercial movement. I've previously expressed that point of view, but on LWN.net my respective comments elicited a lot more heat than light.

Re:Anti-IP fundamentalism is wrong track

[110010001000]

Well I think the "global tax for content" statement should give you pause and cause you to re-examine who you are allying yourself with. If the FSF really believes in such a scheme it completely changes everything. It becomes more apparent that they are interested in destroying the commercial software and digital content industry as we know it. You should also re-examine your anti-software patent stance. The forces who are pushing that seem to have an agenda that may not coincide with yours.

The FSF is intent on destroying to the commercial software industry, period. This should scare the hell out of anyone that plans on working in the software industry. I've been warning about this for years. I am pleased to see that FSF is revealing their true agenda.

Very Bad artical...

[oliverthered]

Over at the reg
they have a better write up, the cause is to stop people like SCO doing an SCO and not to stop people like IBM doing an IBM.

The crapomiter should have gone straight to red on the 'all patent holders cannot use GPL' bit, that's just stupid.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr Z]

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.)

--Joe

Nothing wrong with having patents

[iabervon]

The GPL will definitely interact better with patents. The main lawyer for the FSF has been encouraging free software developers to apply for software patents, to defend against unscrupulous companies patenting free software and to provide a disincentive for companies to sue free software projects over software patents.

Most likely, the GPL v3 will require that any patents used by the code and owned by the licensor must also be licensed for use by any code derived from the licensed code.

It's about frickin time they took on patents

[WillAffleckUW]

70 years ago, most patents were public and used to create new things - in the last ten years it's shifted so much that most patents are used to hamper development and creation, much as lawyers are.

and if you're an IP or patent lawyer and offended by what I just said, ask yourself why your field has quintupled in size over just the last ten years?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr Z]

You can't retrospectively change licences.

Sure you can, if you hold the copyrights to the code. The difference is, you can't remove from existence the older versions of the code or bar people from using those under the older license.

This is a minor but important point. If I want to take my GPL'd stuff private and proprietary, I can. Any GPL'd copies floating about are fully legit. But, if you want any features from newer versions, you're ponying up for the proprietary version. (Take a look at Aladdin vs. GPL Ghostscript for an example of this model in reverse.)

--Joe

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jeremie_z_]

it's not that simple to alter the GPL before applying it : it will require that any modified version be redistributed under the _original_ GPL, not the one you modified.

so the protection / attribution clause (that some FUDders call "virality") is also there to make sure the GPL's integrity will be respected, which complicates a little the use of derivative licenses...

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[dougmc]

All software should be FREE!

So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.

yea right kiddie, you are probably just another of those free software users who has never spent sleepless night behind a computer trying to make a living from it.

I suspect you missed the irony in the post you were referring to. Assuming that this is correct, I'll explain it to you :

At the very lowest level, the GPL is about `free' software. Not free as in beer, but free as in freedom (though free as in beer tends to come along with it as well.) However, the GPL is not the most `free' license out there. It puts signifigant restrictions on what you can do with the code, but these restrictions are generally something that companies and people can live with.

The idea is that these restrictions are needed to keep the software `free'. And while many disagree, many do agree that it's a good thing.

However, the idea that you can't use GPL software at all if you patent software or use DRM, well, that's nuts. That's about as un-free as possible, and I suspect that it will lead to people either 1) using the old version of the GPL or 2) discarding the GPL entirely for a BSD or other license.

Certainly, I don't expect any companies to decide not to patent software or use DRM just because of this new GPL.

RMS has done a lot of good things for the ideas of open source software and free software and such, and has personally given us several excellent pieces of software (like emacs, the King of Editors! :) But he's also sort of a fringe character, and has many kook-like characteristics. Pushing a GPL that doesn't allow the use of the software by certain people will only make his views even less relevant ...

Join us now and share the software indeed.

In any event, I don't think the post you were responding to was coming from your typical `warez puppy' mindset, which seems to be how you responded to it. It looked sarcastic to me.

Mod parent Informative

[DimGeo]

Well explained.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[nofx_3]

I think the idea here is that you can have my improved windsheild for free, as long as you are willing to share your improved steering wheel with me. But the guy over at CarCo or whatever who patents his improved hubcaps, isn't allowed to use our technology improvements becuase he isn't willing to share his. We all still make money off the car, but our car and the car maker who provides the better steering wheel have two improved technologies vs the guy who patents his stuff only has his better hubcaps.

Not A Good Idea...

[blueZhift]

Patent retaliation? Excuse me while I choke... This sounds like a really bad idea. I understand the frustration and anger that the software patent mess has given rise to, but isn't the GPL about freedom? To this point, the language of the GPL is largely positive, but adding patent retaliatory language pushes the GPL closer to the very dark side that its supporters often rail against. Such language can only hurt the adoption of OSS and the GPL.

Before we start discussing

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we start discussing about the positive or negative things that might be or not in the next GPL, shouldn't we wait to have the news from a reliable source. MSNBC cannot be a source of non-FUD info about GPL.

GPL should not apply to CONTENT

[RingDev]

GPL is designed to protect free software. That means that the content management system that is GPL'd should not be elligable for a patent, but that the DRM'd content it plays is fine.

There is a simple market problem here, it costs money to create content, if no one pays for content, (many) people will stop making content.

DRMs are a valid option, and if they are created in a way that allows me to view/listen/read to all of the content I have purchased or rented on any of my systems (car, phone, iPod, computer, tv, PVR, etc) then I will have no problem with them. If they prevent me from burning multiple copies, or make those copies useless to anyone but me, that's fine by me.

-Rick

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[geminidomino]

Hasn't Linux said that this kind of stupid decision is why he opted to leave out the "or later" clause from the kernel's license?

RMS, Gates' Best Friend

[Carcass666]

I like the GPL, use GPL software, and think it's a good thing overall.

However, I am having difficulting grasping why a software license should be dictating how content is distributed. If anything, adding DRM penalties to the GPL would do more to lock out Linux boxes from mainstream content than anything Microsoft could do.

Software should be free, but limiting the freedom of people using it to listen to DRM'd content is counter-productive

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

wow, an econ lesson (i teach HS econ). What I think your arguing is your time versus the product. Your time is valuable and scarce, but the code is not necessarily. for example, though you need bandwidth, drive space, blank cd's, etc., you can replicate code, or the binaries, unlimtied times. you can't do that with a car. and there is a huge difference. we're paying for the allocation of scarce resources going to the car, or your time going to coding. but once complete, a new car still requires X amount of metal, a copy of your code requires 0 amount of your time.

the debate on "free" software is an interesting one economically. for example, open source can help a customer, but if they choose not to take advantage, it's "wasted". while getting under the hood of say Word would be priceless, you don't always need to.(maybe bad example!!) it's a bonus.

the difference between a design, a product, and an idea is tricky. even for an artist, a painting is still a single painting. a design can be copied, but what you're paying for was the time and effort. you're allowing others to use it. if I sold a design to Coproration X for $1 million dollars, then I feel my time and effort were worth that. if i license the design a $100 per, then I either can't get a million, or I figure 10,001 peopelo will license it.

i am a huge supporter of free software. i wrote an internal forum for my school (mysql/php) and licensed it gpl. my colleagues think i'm crazy. but what was I going to get paid, really? but, every school that uses it sees my name at the bottom.

i support any license, i as a consumer use what I feel is best. that's why i develop on my ibook.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Dave2 Wickham]

Assuming you mean the Linux kernel here, that was pretty much a given anyway. In order to relicence it (the Linux kernel uses GPLv2 with an extra clause, IIRC, and that only) they'd need to get every single contributor who still has code in the kernel to agree, as Linus doesn't require copyright assignment.

WMD, and a solution

[Teppy]

Patents are the nuclear weapons of the software world. Many companies have them in case they get attacked, and everyone knows that should there be a patent war, there will be no winners.

The goal of disarmament is noble, but in a world where these weapons already exist, it's very difficult. I have a software patent, and would give it up in a heartbeat if everyone else would do the same. The following solution is one with perhaps even more teeth, and one that I would embrace:

I propose a modification to the rumored GPL 3.0: "The fee for this software is (huge number), due upon initiation of a software patent attack against any entity." A provision specifically allowing retaliatory lawsuits might make it even easier for patent holders to accept.

So, take for example what Unisys did with their LZW ("Gif") patent. The moment they initiated the first lawsuit, huge bills would come due, one for each piece of GPL 3.0 software they had ever used. Mutual Assured Destruction in it's purest form.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[geminidomino]

I could have sworn I typed LinuS...

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Anonymous Coward]

>All software should be FREE!

Whether you are misinformed, deliberately deceptive, or harmlessly misphrasing things I do not know.

The GPL does NOT say "all software should be free".

Proponents of GPL and free software might WISH all software were free, or more people used free software... but those are clearly less ambigious statements than what you say.

People against the GPL use this phrase to edemonstrate that their GPL coworkers want the boss to stop paying everyone, and give away the company code.

Should != Shall
Please do not strawman your opponent. Be honest about things.

(And I think we'll find the MSNBC article to be sensationalized).

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[FireFury03]

You can't retrospectively change licences. ...

If I want to take my GPL'd stuff private and proprietary, I can. Any GPL'd copies floating about are fully legit. But, if you want any features from newer versions, you're ponying up for the proprietary version.

You need to look up what "retrospective" means - you're talking about changing the licence on _future_ versions, hence you're not retrospectively changing the licence.

I guess I worded it badly though - you can retrospectively loosen the licence but you can't restrict it. (I.e. code that's been released GPLed is going to stay GPLed but you can add an additional licencing condition which allows stuff that GPL excludes).

Article misrepresents

[WhiteWolf666]

The real scoop
The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software.

If you patent something related to the way that Apache serves web pages, you are no longer permitted to distribute Apache under the GPL.

If you patent something related to the way Linux's memory management works, you are no longer permitted to distribute Linux under the GPL.

Sounds good to me--- Basically, its an addition the GPL saying, "If you patent some aspect of your software in an attempt to restrict redistribution through non-copyright-based legal tools, your software may no longer be distributed under the GPL"

This is a NECESSARY addition. Otherwise, whats to stop some company from patenting X related to some feature they just contributed to the Linux kernel, waiting 2 years for that feature to become widely used, and then sue everyone using the kernel into oblivion?

Re:Article misrepresents

[delire]

I think you are right. it basically equates to "You cannot use our stuff if you're taking us to court."

A rare occurrence, but it does seem today that The Register's journalism actually clarifies something:

He was speaking to El Reg after an article on Reuters quoted him as saying that anyone who patented software would be prevented from using free software. Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software."

Seems <COUGH>MSNBC</COUGH> gave this a little spin..

Re:Article misrepresents

[Anonymous Coward]

If you patent something related to the way that Apache serves web pages, you are no longer permitted to distribute Apache under the GPL.

Pity Apache is licensed under the Apache License NOT the GPL then?

Re:Article misrepresents

[Anonymous Coward]

If you patent something related to the way that Apache serves web pages, you are no longer permitted to distribute Apache under the GPL.

You can't anyway, Apache is released under the Apache license.

Ouch

[drix]

The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software.

So long IBM, and thanks for all the fish!

Nothing is going to change...

[RecycledElectrons]

Nothing is going to change until we either shoot the bastards or take away their ability to use our software.

Has anyone considered licensing the content so that no member of the RIAA or MPAA, nor any employee of any member company, may use the software?

Andy Out!

"open source" vs. "free software"

[sammy baby]

This really highlights the difference, in my view, between the "free software" (read: Free Software Foundation) and "open source" (read: most everyone else) camps. If I'm not terribly mistaken, a clause denying the use of GPL software to companies that use DRM technologies/hold software patents would violate the definition of open source software, according to the Open Source Initiative. Specifically, I'm looking at clauses 5, 6, and 9.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

Re:"open source" vs. "free software"

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also violate freedom 0 of GNU's free software definition: the freedom to use.

Its a good thing this article is totally wrong.

and btw, I've always read "open source" as: Eric Raymond jerking off.

Re:"open source" vs. "free software"

[nuggz]

Restrictions on use would also violate the philosophy behind free software.
This is one of the reasons why there is such an outcry against changing the GPL to some sort of behaviour agreement instead of copyleft.

Re:"open source" vs. "free software"

[adtifyj]

WRONG

The freedom to use the software is not in any way affected by this or any other version of the GPL.

The GPL is about the freedom to re-distributed other peoples copyright works. You are right to say it is a behaviour agreement: it grants software developers rights they otherwise would not have, provided they enter into an agreement to not screw the original developer up the arse.

Some developers feel that such an agreement is crucial to them being able to give the code away, and I expect RMS will phase the new patent clause that will be acceptable to 99.99% of GPLv2 users.

Re:"open source" vs. "free software"

[nuggz]

If there is any more rewriting than explicitly stating the implied requirements I don't think it will have such widespread acceptance.

For example an if you distribute a GPL work, you are also including an implied license to use any patents contained within that work. I expect this to be accepted.

If you use a work and provide only the output to others (ie a web service) you should not have to distribute the source of your application. I do not expect this to gain as widespread support. Mostly because many have already complained they don't like this idea.

Bingo! You get it!

[alexhmit01]

The FSF was never about giving away software... To do that you just needs computers and FTP space, which RMS had through MIT anyways (that's who distributed GNU for the longest time) and sell the tapes.

The GNU license, as opposed to the MIT or BSD-w/o advertising clause, was about encouraging OTHERS to give away software. Why is GNU Readline GPL and not LGPL? Because if you want to build applications with that functionality, you need to release it under the GPL, or I suppose, something GPL-compatible and let others use a compile-time option. Either you added the viral GPL license OR you released your software in a way usable free software only people.

The goal of the FSF is to get as MUCH software as possible available for people that want to ONLY use free software.

The FSF doesn't care about Microsoft's bottom line.

The FSF doesn't care about "converting users to free software/open source software."

The FSF doesn't care about "benefits of open source development models."

The FSF is dedicated to one thing only. Getting as much Free Software available to users that share their cause.

It is, of course, reaching the absurdity point, where it has become almost religious (and not just the old belief that it is right to be able to modify your softare... and you ought to be able to share your stuff with your friends)... In writing the old GPL (v1 and v2), the goal was to make the software free for ANYONE to use, and use it as a CARROT (if you play in our sandbox, you get to use all this code for free) for development. It appears that there is now a desire to use a stick as well... (if you don't follow our rules on related items, you can't use ANY of this code for your development).

I presume that the GPL will stick to its core as a distribution license. One of the MAJOR fundamental issues that the FSF talked about was that USAGE licenses were absurd and should be ILLEGAL, copyright only covers distribution.

If the FSF turns this into a EULA... EXTREMELY unlikely, I would expect them to lose what remains of their leadership. Unfortunately for RMS, the man that STARTED the movement for free software (and therefore, open source which was originally an attempt at rebranding), he has been relatively marginalized and called a zealot and extremist. I believe that this is an attempt to retake the leadership of the "Free Software/Open Source" Camps under the FSF banner, but I believe it will cause such resistence as to cause a schism. That may be good, or it may be bad. I happen to like competition, but I'm not convinced that Open Source / Free Software compete for people anyway, as the extreme views of the FSF limit them to true believers.

Alex

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr Z]

I can take the code as it exists today, not change a single line other than the comments which state the license, and re-release it as non-GPL code. How is that not retrospectively changing the license on that code? I can even dig up previous versions and re-release them under a different license.

I guess the point is, you can always relicense code, but that never removes from existence the previous versions. And so, any change in license tends to only increase the freedoms available to users.

Of course, that last point is not strictly true: If license A lets you do "X but not Y" and license B lets you to "Y but not X", code offered under a dual license allows you to do "X or Y, but not both, depending on which license you accept." (When code gets offered under a dual license, the end users essentially get to pick which one they accept. Only one license affects a given user at a time.) Adding a second license did not strictly increase the total freedom available to the user, but it did increase their choices among restrictions.

--Joe

MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE

[plj]

Grandparent is totally off here. Nothing will change for software, that is currently licensed under GPL. Not unless the terms of GPL3 are actually looser than those of it's predecessors. Period.

I sure hope the anti DRM and

[nil0]

Well, I must be the only one here, but I do believe that an anti DRM and Software Patent clause in the GPL is a good idea. For a start, people have got to realise that the GPL was never meant to be a "nice" license. This license was born out of the continuing threat against developers and against their desire to share sourcecode with others (If you think the desire to share code is not under threat, check for a specific clause in your contract with your employer that states that all software you develop is theirs). So yes, in a sense, and as it has long been accused, the GPL is viral, and this is being demonstrated here. But it's no more viral than the first article of the Human Rights declaration. And in essence, the GPL is the equivalent of the Human Rights declaration for Software. A lot of whining going on around the GPL, and it being too restrictive already, can be pretty much interpreted to people using the first article of the declaration of Human Rights to their advantage ("Hey, I'm as egal as anybody else, so give me the rights to access your GPL'd sourcecode"), but then complaining that it is in some way too restrictive to their interest ("Couldn't I be more equal than others and not share the code I developed out of GPL'd elements?"). And here lies the true secret of the GPL. The GPL is not directed at helping you. It is directed at helping others "benefit" from you! Understood, it is hard to relinquish your rights from something you invested a lot of time and effort in, and not profit from it. But I think it is time we collectively realize that unchecked capitalism will never profit mankind as much as the free (as in free beer) sharing of resources. Of course, some of you will disagree with this last statement. But then, have you started seeing a trend between increased capitalism and an even smaller number of individual controlling more and more of the planet's resources? How long till you are excluded from that small circle and trying to play catchup with people who will not relinquish any of their developments (because, after all, they have no incentive to do so whatsoever)? Oh, and while we're at it, does my believing that capitalism is notthe ultimate answer make me a communist? I sure hope not! Now, why would they want to add a clause against DRM and Software Patents to the GPL? The answer is fairly simple if you consider how viral capitalism really is (even more so than what Microsoft has been accusing the GPL of) When no safeguard exist between a capilastic and a somewhat nicer and more altruistic approach, which one do you think will prevail? Which one do you think will try to use the other to its advantage? Just consider where we would be if the greatest ideas in science had been patented and DRMed from the beginning of the 20th century onwards? Do you really think you would be posting on /. for a start?

Stallman was right about one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You should only use free software and avoid unfree software.

One can be anti-swpat and pro-business

[FlorianMueller]

I won't rethink my anti-software patent stance because of anything that the FSF does (and in this case, the FSF hasn't even done anything, they're just considering).

My opposition to software patents stems from concerns over their effect on the economy, the industry (except for a few large corporations), and innovation. I'm pro-copyright, pro-trademarks, pro-trade secrets, and even pro-patents in those areas in which they're justified and necessary.

I'm not really FSF-aligned, nor have I worked with them politically. The NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, which I founded last year, was backed by companies (initially Red Hat, MySQL AB, and Europe's largest web hosting company 1&1). Furthermore, I'm a computer game developer, and my project is .NET-based.

I recently warned the open-source community against taking a radically anti-IP position:
ag-IP-news: Open Source Community Should Steer Clear of Anti-IP Positioning Warns Mueller

Re:What about software under older GPL?

[redelm]

Absent specific mention, GPL 2.0 gives the user the right to use v2 or any later version _at her option_. I suspect many people will stick with 2.0. Linux has been licenced v2.0 only.

As for software patents, I expect v3.0 will include a far more reasonable clause automagically granting patent licences when code released.

This is just a trial balloon.

Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fail

[aCapitalist]

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

I guess Greve is a new minion/spokesperson for Stallman.

First off, I'm sure filmakers and musicians will be oh so happy to "socialize" their media. Not.

But Stallman's attempt to put his politics into the license will result in utter failure. DRM is here whether Stallman or slashdotters like it or not, and any attempt to "punish" these people will just result in utter failure for the GPL v3 - even if the license is legal.

This stuff coupled with extending the viralness of GPL v3 in relation to web services will just result in people using GPL v2 and making GPL v3 completely irrelevant and Stallman and the FSF even more irrelevant than they are today.

Three letters.

[DaEMoN128]

I B M.

do we really want to alienate them?? You are 100 percent correct mr parent poster.

What's wrong with patented software and DRM

[steven94585]

I know some people just totally hate the idea of patents and DRM, but that's no reason to start driving a wedge between the fundamentalist and the average user. Simply put if you don't agree with a company's policies, don't buy or steal(as is more often the case) their product. DRM came about because people were stealing music and software. You can't argue that fact. If a new CD or DVD comes out that you just *must* have and it is DRM'ed then you have to make choose what is more important: your principles or getting that item. If the company can make money selling DRM then they will. If the public at large rebelled and refused to buy DRM then they won't sell it. But, I think everyone needs to stop fooling themselves in to believing that the root cause, the theft and copying of copyrighted materials, is not a problem. A true artist just wants to share his or her art, but you can't feed your kids on good feelings.

not subsidizing artists

[zogger]

I won't pay such a tax. We don't need 7/8th of the population calling themselves "artists" so they can get a check from my ISP bill. Not happening. society is already past the point of full time support for those folks. that is one of the reasons that they are complaining, but it's just economics, that "art" market is beyond saturated, it's flooded. They can't all be full time at it.

aaakkkkk The more I think about it the more I realize it is totally out of the question. No, nein, nej. Put your art out there some other way if you want to sell it, but no overall tax. We already did that with blank recording media and it "wasn't enough".

I tell you what I *would* support, a modest in size but useful and functionallinux distro, that had those programs included that were voted on by the purchasers, where all the devs got a piece of the profit. ONE cd max, once a year updated max. Those who didn't care, swell, those who produced the OSS and wanted a chance at a collective micropayment could offer what they had. the incentive is, want to keep getting those payments, keep working on your software, make it better so it stays in the distro come vote time. The distro producers/packagers get a small percentage, the rest all divvied up to the other devs. The folks who use it get to vote on what is included because they come up with the coin, those who don't, no vote. That would eliminate dozens of redundant programs, and reward the devs who actually produce useable stuff beyond pre beta ware. I would pay a reasonable yearly fee for such a distro. I wouldn't pay 100 dollars, but perhaps under 50$ or so, perhaps even less,25$ maybe, but I WOULD like to support all the free coders out there without having to personally do a thousand paypal payments. We have paid distros now, but only a relatively few of the devs involved in the programs on the disk(s) get any money. Just not fair.

Stallman outdoes his KDE/Qt demands

[TigerTale]

I didn't think RMS could top the hubris of demanding five years ago that the developers of KDE ask forgiveness for an alleged GPL violation, after the circumstances of the violation no longer applied.

Apparently, he can.

The GPL is a means of protecting the "openess" of open-source code. It is not a proper tool for behavior modification and cultural engineering--nor should it be.

In Soviet Russia, free software bans itself

[RedLaggedTeut]

Flat out prohibiting use of GPL software to companies that us DRM and/or Patents seems a bit extreme.

In the CIIIA, DRM bans free software from computers.

In Soviet Russia, free software bans itself from computers with DRM.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[FireFury03]

I can take the code as it exists today, not change a single line other than the comments which state the license, and re-release it as non-GPL code. How is that not retrospectively changing the license on that code? I can even dig up previous versions and re-release them under a different license.

The licence forms part of a package - you are releasing a new package with a different licence - you are not retrospectively changing the licence on an existing package. The old package is still available under the old licence, people who are using the old package are still using it under the old licence - you haven't retrospectively changed the licence theya re using that code under.

The licence is a contract between the author and a second party - both parties have agreed to that licence and neither can change it without the conscent of the other.

Infact, I think under GPL you are required to put a licence header in each source code file.

If license A lets you do "X but not Y" and license B lets you to "Y but not X", code offered under a dual license allows you to do "X or Y, but not both, depending on which license you accept." (When code gets offered under a dual license, the end users essentially get to pick which one they accept.

However, I think in many cases it would be difficult to enforce this - with free (beer) licences there is usually nothing stopping someone from "purchasing" more than one licence at the selling price (£0) and using both at the same time.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a copyleft licence. Apples and oranges.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr Z]

Well, the RIAA managed to get something of a tax onto blank CD-R media (though not much of one here). Granted, it's only for media designated "Audio," and the "Data" stuff works just fine for audio in most cases, but it does provide a model. (In Canada, I believe there's no such distinction between "audio" and "data" CD-Rs for purpose of taxation.)

All you'd need to do is tax the big data pipes. That's it. That'd raise the cost of access to the Internet infrastructure, and those costs will get passed up the chain, eventually back to the consumer. It's just like how tollways and turnpikes ultimately raise the price of milk and veggies.

--Joe

Actually it's their idea.

[pavon]

First off this article is garbage, so it is no surprise that people are coming to ridiculous conclusions if they are basing their facts on it. Someone already posted this quote but it bears repeating:

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software."

In reality, the patent provisions that the FSF are considering for inclusion in the next version of the GPL are inspired by the ones in other Free software licenses including IBM very own CPL. They know as well as anyone else that patents pose a threat to Free Software and thus wrote their license in.

The FSF has stated that one of their goals in the next version of the GPL, is to eliminate some of the technical legal barriers between otherwise acceptable Free licenses, and have promised to allow plenty of feedback before settling down on anything. I'll wait for the draft to actually come out before making any judgment on it.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[InvalidError]

How do you BSD something that was already GPL 3.0'd? That would at least require written authorization from all contributors, which may not be possible for many of the larger and more active projects.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Uber Banker]

You summed it up in your last sentence:

i support any license, i as a consumer use what I feel is best. that's why i develop on my ibook.

It is anyone's perogative, as a consumer or producer, to apply any value they want to something, be that value assessed in time lost from doing something wage earning, the colour of the box, whatever. In your example you expected little/no moneraty gain vs. the hassle of trying to market it and your intrinsic feeling of "oh what the heck, this'll get my name about and I have only to gain from getting it out in the public [perhaps you didn't even expect that but an alturistic subconscous gave you some feeling of pleasure in giving something to others]."

Value is what you make of it; today value is often seen as the price of something, but I derive great value from going for a walk in the countryside, which is free - is that value or is that my own personal profit - is value as we use the term infact profit (be it personal or corporate, or more correctly surplus value)? It is quite ironic that many Slashdotter, neigh workers in America, on the one hand claim to be proud of capitalism and the gains it brings, but on the other employ pure Marxist thinking that effort or time producing something has an automatic value.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Queer Boy]

This obviously doesn't solve the problem because you can always use older GPLed software and modify it yourself to keep it up to date.

I could have my licenses screwed up but doesn't the OLD GPL require you to submit your changes if you release software based on GPL source? Basically it looks like a win/win to me. Old applications still get the newer updates and no one can use the newer updates that are integrated unless they don't patent software.

I think it's a great idea. Lost of companies are already making money directly from free software or benefiting from code without having to patent everything.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[h4rm0ny]

The windshield is a bad analogy. I don't agree that an analogy is needed at all here.

The new licence does not say that you cannot charge for your work. It is designed to be incompatible with Patents and DRM. This is distinct to copyright.

Much copyrighted software, written for profit and sold for profit, is developed using GPL components. This is not illegal.

Currently, software patents are invalid in Europe and other parts of the world. This has not prevented people earning a living writing code. You could make a strong argument that it actually helps.

DRM is a seperate issue. DRM is a tool that could be used positively, but with the current balance of power, is going to be used to the detriment of most people.

In using the GPL as a weapon against patents and DRM, the factions are going to divide into more extreme camps, but it's a misunderstanding of the amendments to GPL to confuse Patents with Copyright and to think it bars employment.

DRM per se is a problem

[epeus]

But it is one that will solve itself, as DRM reduces the value of products that use it to the point where their sales disappear.

Perfect PR--for MS

[Anonymous Coward]

What is MS's number one wish re: Linux? That all current and potential MS customers dismiss it as a toy created by a bunch of clueless, communist, dorks. RMS is playing into MS's hands so perfectly with this move that it's terrifying.

I've been saying for a long time that RMS, Linus, Perens, et al. should shut the hell up and stick to topics they actually know something about. This looming mess with the new GPL is the surest proof yet that their egos are in control, to the detriment of the entire F/OSS community.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr Z]

I guess the hair we're splitting is this: I think of the code as "FooBar v1.03", and I can decide to change license I offer it under from GPL to Whatever. What you're saying is that "FooBar v1.03 (GPL)" and "FooBar v1.03 (Whatever)" are different packages and so I haven't changed the license so much as introduced a new package. In either way of phrasing it, the GPL version doesn't go away, and on that point I think we violently agree.

If license A lets you do "X but not Y" and license B lets you to "Y but not X", code offered under a dual license allows you to do "X or Y, but not both, depending on which license you accept." (When code gets offered under a dual license, the end users essentially get to pick which one they accept.

However, I think in many cases it would be difficult to enforce this - with free (beer) licences there is usually nothing stopping someone from "purchasing" more than one licence at the selling price (£0) and using both at the same time.

Depending on what X and Y are, you should still be able to enforce a single user with a single copy of the software from doing X and Y simultaneously. And if I were the author of the software, I might even implement such a restriction in the source code, and it would be against the license to remove the restriction.

One example might be a program that can either rip CDs or burn CDs. License A lets you rip but not burn, and license B lets you burn but not rip. (Admittedly a silly example, but at least it's easily explained.) Sure, you could keep two "copies" for essentially free, and use one for ripping and one for burning. What you're barred from doing is a direct CD-to-CD copy (say, if you have two drives).

--Joe

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Ghent99]

I can take the code as it exists today, not change a single line other than the comments which state the license, and re-release it as non-GPL code. How is that not retrospectively changing the license on that code? I can even dig up previous versions and re-release them under a different license.

I guess the point is, you can always relicense code, but that never removes from existence the previous versions. And so, any change in license tends to only increase the freedoms available to users.

Of course, that last point is not strictly true: If license A lets you do "X but not Y" and license B lets you to "Y but not X", code offered under a dual license allows you to do "X or Y, but not both, depending on which license you accept." (When code gets offered under a dual license, the end users essentially get to pick which one they accept. Only one license affects a given user at a time.) Adding a second license did not strictly increase the total freedom available to the user, but it did increase their choices among restrictions.

I think what he was trying to say is that while you can make only that minor change and re-release your code, that change does not affect any already existing copies of your software. Those that have copies already are bound by the license at the time the license / software was acquired, not by the new license packaged with your re-releases. Thus your changes are not retrospective. That's how I understood it, anyways.

Re:Agreed. More harm than good.

[swillden]

For example, most (all?) Thinkpads have a DRM chip in them.

This is incorrect. Most of them have a TPM in them. A TPM is not a DRM chip, although DRM might be one application of a TPM.

Ironically, the only support of the DRM functions I'm aware of is via a Linux kernel module with was/is made freely available by IBM and is open source.

Yes, IBM provided an open source API to allow programmers to use the TPM. AFAIK, no one has used this API for DRM, although I know of at least one project that is using it for securing keys used for file encryption.

And while the GPL is becoming increasingly powerful, it's got no where near the power to force a fundamental change in how the industry works.

I partly agree. I think the GPL can induce change -- and it has already -- but it musn't be too heavy-handed. I see a few variants here:

1. Holders of software patents cannot make use of the permissions granted by the GPL at all. I don't think it's possible to prevent them from using the software, but they could be prevented from creating derived works or from distributing copies.
2. Holders of software patents can make use of GPL-derived permissions, but only as long as they don't enforce their software patents.
3. Holders of software patents can use GPL-derived permissions, and can enforce their patents, but if they enforce their patents against *any* GPL project, they lose the right to use any GPL-derived permissions.
4. Holders of software patents can use GPL-derived permissions, and can enforce their patents, but if they claim patents that are infringed by a GPL project, they do not have the GPL-provided permissions for that project. They can gain the use of the GPL for that project by explicitly licensing the patent for all GPL use.
5. Holders of softwrae patents can use GL-derived permissions, and can enforce their patents, but if they enforce their patents against a GPL project, they lose the GPL-provided permissions for that project.

The last two options are fairly reasonable, IMO, and would have the effect of reducing the risk patents pose to GPL software. Personally, I like option 4 best.

MSNBC Lies

[floop]

The obvious misquote is corrected in the Register. The proposed change is to protect GPL software developers from patent suits, which has been covered on /. previously.

It is truly sad that most posters on /. are unable to do a basic search to fact check.

Patents and BSD

[Danathar]

I find it funny how people who are Pro-BSD license vs GPL think they are somehow shielded from patent suits.

Just because you change from a GPL to a BSD license will not protect you. It's not just GPL licensed software that's in danger..it's ALL free licensed software that's vulnerable including those under the BSD license.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I love software patents because they let big companies fight with other big companies and crush small companies.

Its the American way, not that pussy european way where we pay taxes to the government to pay for people. Instead we use our money to promote business which is good for all Americans, from the Walton Family to the Gates Family to the Ford Family".

Update: The article is wrong

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> From the article:

The article is wrong. Unfortunately Georg Greve has been misquoted. (I've heard from him by email.)

Some GPLv3 information from the horse's mouth is in the recent FSFE press release about the GPLv3 process.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[compro01]

well, for the info, there already is a tax on the internet (well, on phones actually, but it carries over to the internet as most people use dialup or DSL, which uses phone lines) called the USF (universal service fee/fund http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/usfincrease.h tml). you likely never noticed it on your internet bill, but it's there if your ISP isn't footing the bill themselves (unlikely).

Let's not panic yet

[An Onerous Coward]

To those of you who are running around with your heads cut off, babbling about moving to the BSD license, locking yourself into GPL2, or even giving up on Open Source altogether, please: Sit down, breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes, maybe pop a Valium. All we know for sure is one MSNBC reporter's interpretation of a few ideas that may or may not be running around in Richard Stallman's head. When we see this provision in an actual draft proposal, then go ahead and climb back out onto the ledge.

I think it's very unlikely that this will actually happen. First, it would bring the GPL's enforcability into question, since this would be the first restriction on users of the software. Up until now, the only restrictions were on people who modified and redistributed GPL'ed software.

Second, you just know a good chunk of the community would revolt.

Finally, there are much less extreme forms that would achieve similar aims. One person suggested only removing the right to use the software if the company actually tried to enforce a patent against an open source project.

In summary: Don't Panic.

more like socialism

[mosb1000]

They have to be joking. We don't need socialized software and entertainment. That's just ridiculous. I'm not going to pay some stupid nerd to sit in his mommy's basement and make CG porn. There's a reason we use the free market system to take care of this kind of thing.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

and your last sentence sums it up nicely too. they do so because they have the freedom to do so. it's why people can protest how the government is fascist, as if their actions weren't the very contradictory evidence. it's why europe can bash us, because they know we'll allow it. they would never want marxism, and they know all their squawking is just that, and their safe in the knowledge that we'll never get there. it's a self assuaging act.

Should be renamed.

[Anonymous Coward]

This will only cause confusion with the real (current) GPL.

This new thing should be renamed GCL or GHIL, for "Gnu Communist License" and "Gnu Hopless Idealist License", respectively.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[NickFortune]

Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of drafts written, just none that RMS and company are ready to share.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, they can take all the time they need to get it right. It's an important work :)

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?

The person originating the work holds the copyight - the right to copy - the work alone. He may then sell, assign or grant licences for others to also copy the work. A bit more too it than that, but that's be essentials. Permission to run a GPLed program is expressly granted in the licence, irrespective. So even SCO can use GPL software at the moment - they just can't legally distribute it. Since you can't run a program without receiving a copy in some form, we can probably safely assume that this too is included.

If GPL v3 takes aim at DRM and patents, it may restrict you from receiving a copy.

Well, yes, if Stallman chooses to change certain fundamentals of how the GPL works. I can't see why since it would conflict with the Free Software ethos, and he's been known to be quite keen on that aspect of things.

Seems unlikely though... I'm pretty sure copyright focuses on the person offering the copy.

The copyright remains vested in the author. The terms of the licence which permits use of the software could be changed to exclude, say, patent holders, but I can't see it happening.

But if it does, we'll have a whole year to change the terms under which we offer our software and/or tell Richard not to be such a twat, according to preference.

If it happens. I don't think it will.

I get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman hates Linux. He wants everyone to switch to either BSD, Mac OS-X, Open Solaris, Windows, etc, since most people ignore his Gnu/Linux demands.

Mr. Florian Mueller needs basic education

[fizteh89]

Mr. Mueller: I have an advice for you: go back to school and take some basic computer science and EE classes, which you apparently skipped... This will make you realize that there is absolutely no difference between hardware patents and software patents, as far as computer science is concerned. Hear me? ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL !!! Write it on your forehead! This is called Turing equivalence, The First Law of Computing, if you will. Read this, if you don't believe me: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lsi.cad/msg/00 71ce40aeb97379?hl=en& ANY computational algorithm can be implemented entirely in hardware, as part of chip design, or it can be implemented as an executable code for programmable DSP, or it can be written in any general-purpose programming language, e.g. Java, to be run on any general-purpose computer. The decision to implement certain computation in hardware or in software is influenced by a number of practical considerations, such as intended use, speed of execution, size, power consumption, cost to manufacture, future upgrade plans etc. Of course, nobody is suggesting hardware implementation of, e.g. e-mail client, or, at the opposite end, a software implementation of a core speech compression algorithm as an add-on Java program for cell phone, but it can be done, right? So, tell me, Mr. Florian Mueller, why you keep brainwashing those err... poor and under-educated young people in "No Software Patents" T-shirts running around the Parliament and screaming "Freedom!" How the hell does a truly unique and unobvious algorithm patent, e.g. RSA patent, interfere with their freedom? I have always thought that people who write computer games for too long eventually become mentally handicapped ... just joking... nothing personal...

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr. Underbridge]

Not if you write it otherwise. 1) Remove the offending language regarding patents etc. 2) Wherever the GPL references itself (or any future version of itself), replace with "this license, verbatim."

In other words, remove all references of the GPL from the GPL, as well as the annoying crap.

Re:Agreed. More harm than good.

[Halo-]

Interesting ideas, but I'm not sure if any of them have both the political viabiliy to be accepted and the teeth to do what is supposedly being attempted by the new version of the GPL.

I'm not trying to be a jackass and tear you down, but I think there are flaws in all your suggestions which are fatal. Ultimately I don't think this problem is as solvable a DRM itself. You can put up elaborate barriers, and they might even work most the time, but ultimately, they aren't addressing the right tool for the "problem".

1. Holders of software patents cannot make use of the permissions granted by the GPL at all. I don't think it's possible to prevent them from using the software, but they could be prevented from creating derived works or from distributing copies.

I think this would pretty much kill the GPL in the corporate realm. Every major software player has some patent on something software related. So these people would be reduced to leechs at best.

2. Holders of software patents can make use of GPL-derived permissions, but only as long as they don't enforce their software patents.

If patent holders don't enforce their patents, then the patents are useless. (and effectively become public domain, similiar to trademarks). The amount of money big players like IBM and Sun make off licensing their patents is a signifigant chunk of their overall profit. By the same token, the money and resources it takes to patent even the simpliest of software ideas (which are frivolous at best) is non-trivial. Even if I interperate you to mean "only enforce defensively" there are problems. The major one is that the companies would go out of business overnight as their stock price tanked. Giving away the patent licensing fees would be seen as a VERY dumb move by the money-driven. The other one becomes defining "defensively". Defensive how? When someone sues them for infringement? What keeps me from using a suite over say, one-click shopping to hit my oppenent with everything I have in my portfolio? More importantly you can't selectively enforce your patent rights informally. You either explicitly grant rights or your retain them. The patent system is a "least permission" model. You start with no rights, and have to be explicitly given them.

3. Holders of software patents can use GPL-derived permissions, and can enforce their patents, but if they enforce their patents against *any* GPL project, they lose the right to use any GPL-derived permissions.

So basically, this means any patent can be used freely by anyone releasing under the GPL. But if I decide to sue, then the GPL people have to stop, and I have to stop using their stuff. There are multiple problems here as well. The major one is I don't think anyone making money off a patent is going to happily hand out a license to anyone using GPL. Even if they did, there is a more serious danger. A single party could easily kill large segments of the GPL world with a little planning. Let's say XYZ corp has the patent on some data format "X". X is a good format, and soon everyone is using it everywhere. Whole projects depend on it at a low level. Then one day XYZ corp says: "Nah, we don't want you to use X anymore, and we're cool with not using your stuff. In fact, we're going out of business" So, everyone who uses X in the GPL world now has to immediately stop their product AND get their users to stop. Then they get to rewrite from the ground up. Ouch. Of course the whole concept depends on selective patent enforcement, which I believe isn't valid anyway...

4. Holders of software patents can use GPL-derived permissions, and can enforce their patents, but if they claim patents that are infringed by a GPL project, they do not have the GPL-provided permissions for that project. They can gain the use of the GPL for that project by explicitly licensing the patent for all GPL use.

This doesn't really change anything from idea 3. If I own the patent for "X" a

The moral of the story...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.

The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.

PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:

The Complete Spengler

Another Onion Post?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be serious, right? This is one of those realistic articles from The Onion, isn't it?

Ha, ha, ha. Yes, that's quite amusing...

The moral of the story...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.

The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.

PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:

The Complete Spengler

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[KillShill]

and how does crippling the software with DRM or patents and locking it up help promote the goal of the GPL: keeping software free (as in libre)?

if software that was under the GPL, were encumbered with patents or crippled with DRM, then by definition, it isn't free (as in libre) anymore.

in this world we live in, "kooks" are the most sane and reasonable people it seems.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[vertinox]

First off, I'm sure filmakers and musicians will be oh so happy to "socialize" their media. Not.

DRM is socialism too. Its just run by the corporations rather than the government. The down side is that corporations aren't restricted by a constitution to what they are willing to censor.

Think about it... If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" then what happens to the media that corporations do not allowed to be DRM'ed? Obviously this can be used to stamp out competition or quash views that hurt the companies giving out DRM keys.

What about Indy musicians and film directors whose material is too controversial to purchase a WMA license or get iTunes to publish? If they can't sell their media in any other format because no one can play it... That's censorship by proxy.

We aren't talking about piracy here. We are talking about large mainstream organizations destroying anything that a committee deems non-acceptable for public consumption.

That's as close socialism gets.

Personally, I don't like the media tax either.

Your own education should start with HTML basics

[FlorianMueller]

Your unstructured message calls into question whether you know how to make page breaks in HTML.

It's no brainwash to focus on the problem of software patents. The fact that something can be implemented in hardware as well doesn't make a patent any more desirable.

When I say that I'm against software patents, I'm against patents on algorithms that serve a pure data processing purpose and don't constitute an invention in a field of applied natural science. A superior anti-lock braking system that is powered by software (which software would most likely reside on a chip) is fine if software is used to shorten the braking distance or achieve a similar effect.

As for RSA, there is wide consensus in the world that pure mathematics shouldn't be patentable, and that's what RSA is all about. Like I said, I'm fine with patents on applied natural science, but not on pure program logic.

Reccommended Reading.

[delire]

The Register

Georg Greve of FSFE has posted a clarification:

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Here's a statement from Georg Greve:

there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.

The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.

As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.

Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.

So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.

It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.

That has been a most unpleasant experience.

Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President

Re:Georg Greve of FSFE has posted a clarification:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure about anyone else, but after I saw the MSN logo in the top of my screen I was very wary of what was being said. It read like a Microsoft TCO study.

Great, Another Completely Innaccurate Article

[rm69990]

This was a post on lwn.net from the President of FSFE

Hi all,

there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.

The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.

As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.

Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.

So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.

It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.

That has been a most unpleasant experience.

Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President

Mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD > GPL

Re:This is cutting off your nose to spite your fac

[KillShill]

and how open is DRM-ed software and how free (as in libre) is patent-encumbered software?

if you'd care to investigate, DRM and patents are the opposite of freedom. they !restrict! freedom, not increase it.

O.k. Stallman has gone completely bonkers

[Anonymous Coward]

Experts still discuss if this was caused by the Hard disk he is wearing on his head by exposing some delicate parts of his brain to pressure doing so, whether wearing a hard disk on the head was not the cause but already a sign of mental illness or if this is just a sign of simple senile dementia.

Oh, boy, do I feel cowardly writing this post and pissing the stubborn^w holy RMS on his leg ... :-P

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[labratuk]

BSD license. Works well for OpenSSH.

Worked badly for Wine.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jellomizer]

All software should be FREE!
No you are wrong. The developer should have rights on what they do with their software. I am a fan of GNU software and many of the idea, but the one thing that I hate is the idea that all software should be this way. I would rather put more focus on the fact that Software can be Copyrighted and Patented, where both rules affect each other, we should settle on one form and reject the other, My vote would be on copyrighted. Say I make a program that is used for military reasons, do I want anyone who asks for the source to just have it? Um No it is not about security threw obscurity it is about having the wrong hands knowing how the software works, so they can duplicate it and have the same advantage as we do. GNU is about freedom, but it is about their vision of freedom not everyones. For God Sake GNU People let people code and license the way they want to because that is what they are going to do. If you make the GNU to strict then all it will do is scare away the more moderate GNU people to other licenses or make their own.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Tankko]

If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" How can you really think that it will mean NO MEDIA can be played that isn't DRM? Where are you getting that from? Please provide a link that isn't to some knee-jerk site. I agree there might be a problem is you have come controversial media that you WANT DRM on, but are you saying these new machines will refuse to play .mp3's? Get a grip. These kind of reactions don't help anyone out. They just paint all anti-DRM people are idiots.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[FurryFeet]

For a moment there, you had me thinking "wow, they sure have put some advanced AI in the kernel".

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of the SSSCA? Good luck getting your non-DRM indie media to play at all if such a law passes, and it would have if not for the 9/11 attacks.

Perhaps, you, and the modders, should read TFA

[WindBourne]

It says that the execution occurs IFF you try to use your patents against somebody else of that software. So, if IBM goes after MS for stealing ideas and code, then nothing happens to IBM. But if IBM goes after Amazon for using OSS code, then the clause would kick in and prevent IBM from using/giving away code.

This license is meant to prevent the abuse that SCO is showing the world. They knock the GPL and attack the users of Linux on false premises, then turn around and sell OSS on their stuff. This is meant to give teeth to GPL. For those that say it will not happen, well, most of you also say that the GPL is invalid. You have noticed that courts in Germany and a few others have upheld the GPL. In addition, nobody in America seems in a hurry to take on the GPL, contract law, and copyright law.

Idiot!

[LWATCDR]

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections."

Who will decide which artist gets how much? Who will decide how much tax I will pay? This is just STUPID.
I swear They don't need Microsoft to spread FUD when their are public statements like this!
This would also mean the end of "Free WiFi".
Thank you but no thanks.
I do not download any pirated movies or music from the net. I sure do not want to pay a tax that goes to the RIAA and MPAA so other can.
I suggest that a better tactic is this. If you want the PROTECTION of copyright law then you can not us DRM. If you use DRM then you forfeit legal copyright protection. The idea of copyright law is that you get protection for a work for a limited period of time and then that work becomes public domain for the good of the public.
DRM material can never really go into the public domain so it should forfeit the legal protection of a copyright.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Nimrangul]

Wine was MIT licenced, not BSD. And there still exists Rewind, a fork which is still MIT licenced.

It didn't even work badly for Wine, they feared that it would lead to problems with people not contributing back. Nothing bad happened, they just got scared.

Coporations are making squat from software.

[jotaeleemeese]

What they are doing to make money is to sell services (consultancy, integration, training) around that sofware.

Perhaps the only company still making money from only selling software is Microsoft, and considering that they had to break the law to make money I would not consider selling propietary sofware a very sound bussiness model in the long term.

Either that or IBM, Novell, HP, RedHat and many others are wrong.

this will split the internet up

[Anonymous Coward]

On one side you will have Microsoft pushing the DRM. On the other side you will have free content. I am for free content. But I see coming a internet divided. Some sites you will be able to go too, and you will have no problem, same with downloads. But others you will be locked out.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Procrastin8er]

All software should be FREE!
How about leaving that decision to the developer?
The decision of how to license should be up to the person/people who developed it. If you want to release via GPL go ahead, if you want to release under some other terms go ahead.
Freedom of choice.

LIAR!

[WindBourne]

Do not lie! Those links are false! You can not prove that they work!

So far, that is about all I ever get out of fox news.

Just like q-bits, word choice has spin too!

[Dark Fire]

From the article...

"The European Union failed to adopt a new software law earlier this year, after a stalemate in the heated debate between advocates of free software and commercial companies which wanted more freedom to patent software."

Notice the last phrase...

"commercial companies which wanted more freedom to patent software."

Notice the use of the word freedom...

Political wars are won and lost with terminology.

Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union
Pro Choice vs. Pro Life

I don't see how the word choice could have been accidental given the strong ideas that embody the word freedom. Especially the way it has been used these days.

I am not posting for or against the issue in the article, I just find the powerful use of terminology in stories concerning politically sensitive matters facinating. It jumps out at me like a misspelled word.

Focus on informational content

[fizteh89]

Are
you
happy
now?

For your information, patents protect technological innovations.
Pure math is not patented, only its application to some specific problem.

If you disallow software logic claims for anti-lock braking system,
you will essentially destroy any protection for it.

Perhaps, more relevant example for open-source crowd is Transmeta.
Linus himself admitted that their chips are 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software
(Code Morphing Software, patented by Transmeta, of course)

And you want to remove patent protection for software?
How are they going to protect their chip designs from being stolen?
Do you have a better alternative?
Just don't say "copyright".
I am tired of explaining why copyright is not adequate for protecting software.

Re:Focus on informational content

[Wolfbone]

"For your information, patents protect technological innovations.
Pure math is not patented, only its application to some specific problem."

For your information, patents protect patentable inventions, not innovations, and technology is a nebulous term that has no practical significance.

"If you disallow software logic claims for anti-lock braking system,
you will essentially destroy any protection for it."

That is a deeply ignorant statement: if the ABS invention is not excluded by such consideratons as that it is merely an advance in data processing or mathematics, then there is no reason why it should not be potentially patentable.

"Perhaps, more relevant example for open-source crowd is Transmeta.
Linus himself admitted that their chips are 1/3 hardware and 2/3 software
(Code Morphing Software, patented by Transmeta, of course)"

The distinction between hardware and software is irrelevant, and so is the distinction between open source and closed source software.

"How are they going to protect their chip designs from being stolen?"

Chip designs are 'protected' by the well-known sui generis law that is neither copyright nor patent.

"I am tired of explaining why copyright is not adequate for protecting software."

You may well be tired of 'explaining' why copyright is "not adequate" but your mental fatigue is of little consequence in the light of economic evidence, the opinions of pioneers and luminaries in the field and the fundamental principles of the patent system itself.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

it's why people can protest how the government is fascist, as if their actions weren't the very contradictory evidence.

Sorry, but you're just being silly here.
The US government is absolutely fascist at this point.
Whether or not you can talk about it without being hauled off to a camp is irrelevant.
Fascism is what you get when you merge the power of the state with the power of corporations and usually the church.

State and corporate power are essentially merged at this point, and a lot of people are pushing to get the church in there too.

I think you don't understand what fascism is or even the fact that it works fine regardless of the overlying structure.
You can have a fascist dictatorship or a fascist democracy with no contradiction.

my retaliation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, go ahead...

If the FSF changes the GPL an include a restriction like this I'll stop using the GPL license in all my software products and re-license them to something less restrictive.

This isn't a smart move, sorry.

Ha,ha,ha. Ignoramus of the history of art.

[jotaeleemeese]

Most painters, musicians, dancers, architects (specially), sculptors and plastic artists of any note were founded by patrons.

The nobility, the church, the burgoise, the state, the coporation. The names of the patrons are different, the arttist needs to court their favour.

Good art almost always is funded by some powerful institution.

The ridiculous myth of the solitary, poor artist should have died decades ago.

Stupid as shit... and yeah, a bit trollish

[hesiod]

Now I pass for a moderately intelligent human, and I like to troll from time to time, but adding a retaliation clause to a copyright statement -- a document that is supposed to be held up as a shining beacon of software freedom -- is the most childish thing I have seen from a group of adults... umm... no, well, there's congress... the most childish thing I've seen any (adult) Open Source advocate seriously consider.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Cyno]

First off, I'm sure filmakers and musicians will be oh so happy to "socialize" their media. Not.

These changes to the GPL were all about forcing filmakers and musicians to socialize their media. Not.

Tell me, aCapitalist, did Stallman's previous attempts to put politics into the license fail?

You seem to be on the side of DRM and patents. How typical of a Capitalist.

even if the license is legal.

Without the license its illegal to use the software. However, its perfectly legal for me to have the BSA audit your company for all infringing software and fine/sue you for 100x its retail price, which could be anything considering the value of intellectual property in your lovely capitalist society.

Since you've shown you understand very little about copyright, software licenses and specificly the GPL v3. If you still think you're right, either prove that capitalism is better than socialism or take your McCarthyism elsewhere.

making GPL v3 completely irrelevant and Stallman and the FSF even more irrelevant than they are today.

So you think Linux is irrelevant? What about GCC, Emacs, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, etc. Where would they be today without the (L)GPL? Can you guess who wrote those licenses? I'll give you a hint, his initials are R, M, and S.

Remember kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.

"Web access could come with a cultural flat fee," he said.

When you program GPL open source, you're programming communism.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jeremie_z_]

Then it's not GPL anymore!

It became the Mr.Underbridge Public License, and is probably not compatible with the GPL anymore...

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[vertinox]

How can you really think that it will mean NO MEDIA can be played that isn't DRM?

Um... Wasn't that the point of "trusted computing"? Please correct me if I am wrong and I'd rather be wrong in this situation.

Re: Mod parent +5 informative!

[Titus B. Otch]

Yes, you're right. I actually noticed that tax on my phone bill, and I pay around ~$7 alone just for fees/taxes on my phone bill. I don't think that's what Greve (?) had in mind though. By the way, watch your phone bill carefully! I had switched to cable (at one time) and that fee still applied. I don't think using the phone company's ISP has anything to do with it. Those fat cat phone company CEO biatches!

Death of GPL

[geekee]

Adding rules against software patents and anti-piracy technology will be the death of GPL. Linus has already said that he does not dictate what people do with linux, including using DRM technologies. Free software will not be useful for consumer technologies without DRM, since content producers will not budge on this. Therefore, GPL will be abandoned for these apps.

Software patents are here, and there is the occasional reasonable one (such as mp3 patent). So companies are going to patent software, for defensive purposes, if for no other reason. If you tell them they can't they will find other non-GPL software, rather than risk multi-million dollar lawsuits to save a few bucks.

I thought the idea of GPL was to promote freedom. I knew this was bs before, and now here's more proof. GPL is about control, controlling what you can do with software that was "given" to you. Now they want to increase that control with these new rules to further push their agenda. GPL is not free as in speech. That phrase doesn't even make sense as an analogy.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

How about fixing the patent system instead, and getting rid of the brain-dead software patent examiners who have no clue what's "obvious to someone in the field" or not?

Like, for starters, coming up with the idea to simulate a real-world thing is not, in and of itself, patentable, though clever implementations might be (note: clever ones, not obvious ones.)

It's ironic, but one of the examples used as a bad patent, the 1-click purchase, is actually an example of a good patent. It was completely beyond the concept of computer programmers to do such a thing without confirmation. Amazon deserves it. That the implementation is trivial and obvious once the concept is realized is irrelevant in this case. The idea was obviously not obvious.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Mr. Underbridge]

Yeah, that's the point. You win the prize.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

All you'd need to do is tax the big data pipes. That's it. That'd raise the cost of access to the Internet infrastructure, and those costs will get passed up the chain, eventually back to the consumer.

And how do we decide Britney gets $10 million per year, and Squee Dunk Artist Band gets $100k? And what about Guy Cranking Out Crap Songs By The Dozen Who Wants A Free Ride? What about that "band"?

And, sigh, all because people want to steal songs instead of pay for them. Maybe the real solution is a large increase in the quality of character of the average citizen. No, this isn't a troll. Read my .sig.

It's just like how tollways and turnpikes ultimately raise the price of milk and veggies.

No, it'll be more like people creating farms so they can get paid by the government to not grow things.

You have no understanding of concepts u criticize

[danielk1982]

DRM is socialism too. Its just run by the corporations rather than the government.

By definition socialism implies government involvment. There is no such thing as 'corporate socialism'.


If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" then what happens to the media that corporations do not allowed to be DRM'ed? Obviously this can be used to stamp out competition or quash views that hurt the companies giving out DRM keys.

Non DRM'ed Media is freely available to be viewed however you wish. DRM ONLY affects media which makes use if it. That is if some encrypted and DRM'ed mp3 file has a 'do not view if X' (where X is some condition) flag set it probably means its creator does not wish this file to be opened or played if X. If you're the content creator you can easily either a) ignore DRM and just release a vanilla non DRM'ed mp3 or b) release a DRM'ed mp3 with a flag set to 'allow to be viewed/modified by all under any conditions'.

DRM lets content creators decide how their ip gets used.


That's censorship by proxy

No such thing. Censorship ONLY applies to government limits on free speech. Me kicking you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying is NOT censorship.

We are talking about large mainstream organizations destroying anything that a committee deems non-acceptable for public consumption.


No.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> i wrote an internal forum for my school (mysql/php) and licensed it gpl.

I hope you weren't being paid by the school at the time.

If so, a good lawyer will crack that GPL in less time than it takes to say "Lindsay Lohan looked a hell of a lot better as a redhead and with a little more womanly fat on her body."

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually saying something usful rather than a knee jerk "OMG!!!11" reaction.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[killjoe]

"For God Sake GNU People let people code and license the way they want to because that is what they are going to do. "

Wow I was unaware that GNU was forcing programmers to use their license. Did the GNU squad come and break down your door and make you code under the GPL license with a gun to your head?

Why are you so freaked out about people expressing their opinion that all software should be FREE.

"If you make the GNU to strict then all it will do is scare away the more moderate GNU people to other licenses or make their own."

There are already dozens of pseudo free open source licences out there. It's already too late. Again nobody is forcing you to use GPLed software.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[aCapitalist]

These changes to the GPL were all about forcing filmakers and musicians to socialize their media. Not.

I never claimed it was. I was commenting on the Stallman minion blathering.

Tell me, aCapitalist, did Stallman's previous attempts to put politics into the license fail?S

What politics was that? There was nothing explicitly political in the license itself and now there would be.

You seem to be on the side of DRM and patents. How typical of a Capitalist.

DRM is better than than this braindead scheme put out by Stallman's minion. I've never been a big fan of software patents as they are currently awarded.

Without the license its illegal to use the software. However, its perfectly legal for me to have the BSA audit your company for all infringing software and fine/sue you for 100x its retail price, which could be anything considering the value of intellectual property in your lovely capitalist society.

Haha, you have no power. You can't get the BSA to do anything.

Since you've shown you understand very little about copyright, software licenses and specificly the GPL v3. If you still think you're right, either prove that capitalism is better than socialism or take your McCarthyism elsewhere.

It's already been proved countless times around the world already. I know you neo-commies think "If we just try it this one way, it'll work". Nobody is buying your crap.

So you think Linux is irrelevant? What about GCC, Emacs, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, etc. Where would they be today without the (L)GPL? Can you guess who wrote those licenses? I'll give you a hint, his initials are R, M, and S.

You're completely demented. I could care less about Emacs, how much Stallman code is still in GCC? and Stallman has nothing to do with OO, KDE, or Gnome or Linux(Stallman is bitter he doesn't have his own kernel).

There's nothing magic about the GPL where these projects would somehow not exist without it. You need to use reason - something you socialists/communists hate doing.

Did anyone here RTFA?

[Szaman2]

Seriously, did anyone RTFA at all? What the hell are you people talking about? The article clearly says that only when you use a patent against specific GPL'd software, you loose the right to distribute that particular software.

So, for example if you patent a vi clone, you might loose the right to distribute vi, but you can still distribute emacs - and etc..

Btw, great job on choosing MSNBC as a source for GPL related story. I wouldn't really read to much into what they say, without confirming the details using some less biased source.

Re:Did anyone here RTFA?

[AlXtreme]

Seriously, did anyone RTFA at all?

You're new here, right?

Er... Red Hat? IBM?

[Rogerborg]

Way to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Also, I'd like to see wording that unambiguously distinguishes between a company obtaining a patent and employee of that company or a previous employer doing so.

My gut feeling is that this is a bridge too far for the GPL, and it will cause a schism between the FSF using GPL3 and, well, everyone else who will stick with GPL2. Including, I rather suspect, Linus.

GPL about control, not freedom

[geekee]

"If this is accurate, then I honestly feel this is a bad idea. One of the strengths of the GPL is its ability to bring people in, while still enforcing the idea of Free (as in Freedom)"

The GPL has always been about control, not freedom. The GPL actually sets limits on freedom. Specifically, the GPL is about free access to source code, at the expense of the freedom to sell modifed code without revealing changes to source.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[mengel]

Virtually every large software company has patents on software. The world's largest software patentee, by far, is IBM - a strong Linux advocate.

My suspicion is that, if IBM holds patents that threaten Free Software, RMS doesnt care if they're a strong Linux advocate -- he would rather force them to grant a license to all their software patents to any and all software released under the GPL. Which is how I suspect they'll phrase it -- by copying or using any GPL software, you agree to license all your software patents for use in other GPL software...

So if you want to make commercial software companies pay for your patents, great, but if you want to use GPL software, you have to let other GPL software use your patents

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[einstienbc]

And, sigh, all because people want to steal songs instead of pay for them. Maybe the real solution is a large increase in the quality of character of the average citizen.

I would hate to turn another discussion to this, but it really depends on said average citizen's definition of theft. For example, let's take the old "You wouldn't steal a car/DVD/whatever" thing. Of course you wouldn't. These things take time, energy and resources to build, and these things cost money. So-called "Piracy" as it were requires no resources, just a little time and energy on the part of the "thief". Remember: making a copy of a song requires a few mouse clicks. "Theft" defined in this case would be the fact that instead of paying them for a service, which is what music basically is, you get it somewhere else.

Another conjecture is the quality of the "stolen items". I distinctly remember most record companies not having a huge problems with bootleg cassetes of either concerts or album tracks, because they were always of inferior quality. So... have you listened to an mp3 file lately

As for those with CD stamps making fake albums, then selling them for a reduced price; that is just wrong.

Oh yeah, and does anyone know weather or not this would allow Microsoft to continue their Linux vs Windows TCO analysis?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[dougmc]

and how does crippling the software with DRM or patents and locking it up help promote the goal of the GPL: keeping software free (as in libre)?

I didn't say it did.

It's not actually clear what the new GPL is going to do. According to the MSNBC, the new GPL is going to be `including penalties against those who patent software or use anti-piracy technology.'

Well, guess what? That's IBM. That's Sun. That's Microsoft, Cisco, AOL, etc. It's probably even companies like Redhat. That's pretty much every large company that writes and sells software, actually.

I'm not sure what the penalties are supposed to be either (and fsf.org doesn't seem to say, at least not without digging), but if they go as far as saying that the company can't use GPL'd software, then that'll go over like a lead balloon. `Oh, if you use the GPLv3, IBM can't use it.' `Really? Then I'll just use GPLv2.'

It's not so much that patenting software is a bad idea (well, it's a bad idea for the government to allow it, but since it's allowed, it's unwise for companies not to do it) it's that using those patents offensively against free software is a bad thing. Which isn't what the MSNBC article says in the summary, though Greeve does hint at that.

(Actually, the current mess with patents in the US, software and other, would be greatly improved if the Patent Office would merely apply it's own rules -- that something to be patented must not be obvious to the layperson, and must not be covered by prior art. It would also help if they'd make it a lot simpler to contest a patent by bringing up things (like prior art) that the patent reviewer was not aware of.)

in this world we live in, "kooks" are the most sane and reasonable people it seems.

Perhaps, though many people don't consider RMS to be sane and reasonable, even many people in the `open source' community. And to outsiders, he just comes across as a kook.

He's done a large number of very good things for software in general -- don't get me wrong. But perceptions are important -- perhaps not so much to us, but to the suits, definately.

Probably would be unenforcable in Missouri

[Oligonicella]

"The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software."

My guess is this would fly about as far as a non-compete agreement. Regardless of someone signing such a contract, it cannot be upheld in court.

Funny that someone (or ones) who promote "free" software would try such a tactic.

The ethics involved with preventing someone from using something that is nowhere in the domain of the first party is questionable, to say the least. You are free to purchase Sony products unless you use RCA products.

Re:Probably would be unenforcable in Missouri

[acceleriter]

If the GPL is invalid, so are all shrink-wrap EULAs. I'd settle for that.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Gaijin42]

I think you are alluding to a Mussolini quote here (although there is some debate on if Mussolini actually said this or not)

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

However, the meaning of the word corporate here has almost exactly the opposite of the way we think of the word today.

Rather than meaning a ".inc" business, industry, zaibatsu, what have you

in 1950's Italian, "corporate" had a meeting much more like "cooperative" and in fact was refering to unionization of workers, IE socialism.

Fascism requires government control of the means of production, and in fact is prety darn close to actual implementations of socialism. (The dream of socializm, never materializing except for small 1960's communes and kibbutz)

In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism. Not that it is a good thing, but it does nobody any good (regardless of where you are in the political spectrum) to use the wrong vocabulary.

The left often likes accusing Bush et al of being fascists, or NAZIs. Its debatable if NAZIism is in fact fascism, or if the two groups just had common enough goals to get along, but remember, the NAZIs were National SOCIALISTS.

Re:Agreed. More harm than good.

[swillden]

Just a point of clarification: I wasn't espousing any of the approaches I mentioned, just pointing out that there are a variety of degrees. I agree that the version I think is probably the most reasonable is fairly weak... because anything stronger would do too much to limit adoption of GPL'd software.

Now some specific responses:

I think [option 1] would pretty much kill the GPL in the corporate realm.

Agreed. I think it would be a terrible idea.

If patent holders don't enforce their patents, then the patents are useless. (and effectively become public domain, similiar to trademarks).

No, you don't lose a patent by not enforcing it. I think your point, though, is that if everyone knows you can't afford to enforce it because of what it would cost you (assuming a significant part of your business is dependent on distributing GPLd software), then you've effectively given it up. I agree.

A single party could easily kill large segments of the GPL world with a little planning. Let's say XYZ corp has the patent on some data format "X". X is a good format, and soon everyone is using it everywhere.

Data formats can't be patented. Not directly, anyway. Microsoft has claimed some sort of patent protection for their new Office XML formats, but they've never clarified which patents or how they could apply. It's possible this could happen, but it seems unlikely.

In general, I think the patent system does need to implement some protection against submarine patent attacks. We don't a trademark-style use-it-or-lose-it regime, but neither should it be possible to intentionally sit on a patent and spring it on everyone later. That's an issue with all patents, though, not just GPL stuff. Everyone is in the same boat there.

However toothless these weaker -- and more realistic -- variants seem to be, I think it's clear that having some protection against patent attacks is better than having none, and I think it's equally clear that having very strong anti-patent provisions in the GPLv3 will prevent the GPLv3 from being used. That's why I would favor the weak approaches.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Dare nMc]

> > i wrote an internal forum for my school (mysql/php) and licensed it gpl.
>I hope you weren't being paid by the school at the time.

gotta love slashdot legal advice, all black and white. you got paid for it, so it can't be GPL'd.

when I word it that way, does it make your post sound stupid? it should.

Software Patents are not EVIL

[gomel]

... only Software Patents which last for 20 years.

Patents have a limited duration time for a reason. On one hand they give the owner a temporary monopoly to use them commercially, so that he can recuperate his expenses on R&D. That's a good thing. On the other hand the law accepts that knowledge should belong to everyone, after the patent expires.

The patent duration should be adjusted to the area of research and they sometimes are. For example, in some countries patents on drugs can be extended by 5 years, because the approval process and clinical test can take up 12-15 years during which the company canot sell the drug and is loosing money.

The maximum duration of software patents should be short, ca. 3-5 years. This would give startup companies protection for their new products against blatant rip-offs by big, uncreative companies. On the other hand it would not be possible to use your portfolio of 10,000 patents from the 80s as a strategic weapon to mug the weak (aka the 'IBM tax') or nuke your competition.

Unfortunately international trade agreements (GATT) have fixed the minimum duration of patents for ALL INVENTIONS at 20 years. It's almost impossible to change international agreements. The consequence is that when a country defines software as an invention, it can not give it a shorter patent duration. The only way out would be to define a special status to software inventions.

p.s. I'm not trolling here. I'm posting this under my regular username.

Re:Software Patents are not EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

The maximum duration of software patents should be short, ca. 3-5 years. This would give startup companies protection

I work for a startup. My three-year anniversary is a few days away. We're doing quite well, and as a result might actually be profitable in another quarter or two. We have a number of patents pending, most of which we filed for three years ago, before we announced details of the product and offered it for sale. (This is, of course, a requirement of law.)

Companies don't start up, swamp the world with their product, IPO and make everyone billionaires in a couple of months. You're still stuck in Internet bubble fantasy land. 3-5 years is not an unreasonable time just to get a company going, much less actually benefit from the first few years of hard work.

Re:Software Patents are not EVIL

[gomel]

> I work for a startup.

I'm interested in hearing more.

> We have a number of patents pending,
> most of which we filed for three years ago,
> before we announced details of the product
> and offered it for sale.
> (This is, of course, a requirement of law.)

As you surely know, patent aplications are published after 18 months. At this point it is possible to claim quasi-ownership of the invention. To quote Wikipedia: "The marking [patent pending] serves to notify potential infringers who would copy the invention that they may be liable for damages once a patent is issued." I believe this should successfully deter the competition to the same extent as a regular patent.

> Companies don't start up, swamp the world with their product,
> IPO and make everyone billionaires in a couple of months.
> You're still stuck in Internet bubble fantasy land.
> 3-5 years is not an unreasonable time just to get a company
> going, much less actually benefit from the first few years of hard work.

It is my opinion that if it takes as much as 3 years for a company to come up
with a product, it's doing something wrong. 3 years is almost a whole era in IT terms
(almost as long as the span between Windows releases )
I suggest that you propose a software patent duration that would be satisfactory.

I didn't come up with the 3-5 years out of nowhere. It's part of Bezos' proposal, which I quote below.

------
1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of patents.

2. That business method and software patents should have a much shorter lifespan than the current 17 years -- I would propose 3 to 5 years. This isn't like drug companies, which need longpatent windows because of clinical testing, or like complicated physical processes, where you might have to tool up and build factories. Especially in the age of the Internet, a good software innovation can catch a lot of wind in 3 or 5 years.
[...]
If done right -- and it could take 2 years or more -- we'll end up with a patent system that produces fewer patents (fewer people will bother to apply for 3 or 5 year patents, and fewerpatents means less work for the overworked Patent and Trademark Office), fewer bad patents (because of the pre-issuance comment period), and even the good patents won't last longer than is necessary to give the innovator a reasonable return (at Internet speed, you don't need 17 years). Bottom line: fewer patents, of higher average quality, with shorter lifetimes.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

I'm not alluding to anything.

read this

Then read this

Seriously, if you can say something like:
"In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism."

then you really don't understand the issue.

The things you mentioned are the means by which fascists established themselves here rather than as in Europe by direct election/revolution.
It in no way makes it reverse fascism.

If you actually knew anything about it you would know that fascism was created for the express purpose of being "reverse communism" or at least being sold as such.

So your claim is that the US government is currently communist?!?

That's more than a little bit silly.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Gaijin42]

I think you are alluding to a Mussolini quote here (although there is some debate on if Mussolini actually said this or not)

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

However, the meaning of the word corporate here has almost exactly the opposite of the way we think of the word today.

Rather than meaning a ".inc" business, industry, zaibatsu, what have you

in mid-century Italian, "corporate" had a meeting much more like "cooperative" and in fact was refering to unionization of workers, IE socialism.

Fascism requires government control of the means of production, and in fact is prety darn close to actual implementations of socialism. (The dream of socializm, never materializing except for small 1960's communes and kibbutz)

In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism. Not that it is a good thing, but it does nobody any good (regardless of where you are in the political spectrum) to use the wrong vocabulary.

The left often likes accusing Bush et al of being fascists, or NAZIs. Its debatable if NAZIism is in fact fascism, or if the two groups just had common enough goals to get along, but remember, the NAZIs were National SOCIALISTS.

Anyway, to bring the conversation full circle, nobody in bush's circle wants government control of business. If anything, they want the opposite - business controlling government. But thats what almost everyone wants (not business, but whatever your own interests are)

Thats what democracy is, everyone fighting for themselves. Now, you can say people should fight for the greater good, and avoid tragedies of the commons, but that is a flaw with democracy and capitolism itself, not a sign that the US is fascist

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[aichpvee]

discarding the GPL entirely for a BSD or other license.

Maybe one or two projects would go that way, but given that the whole concept of BSD is so drastically different than GPL, there isn't going to be any mass migration, or likely any at all.

Not to say that people won't jump ship from GPL (which they might, though I don't see why they wouldn't stick with 2.0), but it sure as hell isn't going to be to a BSD license.

Re:You have no understanding of concepts u critici

[vertinox]

By definition socialism implies government involvment. There is no such thing as 'corporate socialism'.

Without Government there would be no such thing as a "corporation". Corporations are sanctioned and recognized by the government without which they could not exist. There is some legaleese if you to study about the 1890's about corporations being recognized as persons if you want and that we should fall for it.

DRM lets content creators decide how their ip gets used.

You mean make people pay twice for something they already own. Secondly and sadly, most creators don't actually have any say in how their creations are used once they sign it away to companies.

No such thing. Censorship ONLY applies to government limits on free speech.

What? I didn't say that. Besides, ever hear of self-censorship? The church censorships all the time through history. Go hit dictionary.com or something. Anyone can do it, but the only person who legally bound to not censor your freedom of speech is the government. I didn't say it was illegal... I said it was censorship via proxy. But just because it is legal doesn't make it moral and just.

Me kicking you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying is NOT censorship.

Oh and what did I say about analogies!!! That doesn't work because I wouldn't be in your house trying to talk with you with some device. But if you want one it's like if you went to the store and all the phones bleeped out words of something you were trying to say even though they were non-offensive words.

No.

Yes.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Dare nMc]

>it is about having the wrong hands knowing how the software works, so they can duplicate it and have the same advantage as we do.

having the same advantage is the point of GNU license. give anyone in your company/anyone in the country/anyone in the world/ doing the same work the advantage of starting not from scratch, when it needs fixed.

A thread about what GNU does for us would be more "Insightful" What GNU licese does for most programers (me), is allow them(me) to be more productive, and thus worth more, and thus better paid. It also lowers entry costs for new/small companys, which increases competition, increases the number of products, and builds on it's self.

If I had to completly write every different application from scatch and buy a dozen licenses for everything I tried for my company, I wouldn't accomplish anything without a large team. since my company can't afford a large team for my job, they just wouldn't keep any programmers at this stage, and stay with the status quo, of what is working.

And you read the GPL3 where, exactly?

[jbn-o]

Interesting that you have drawn a conclusion without having read the text of the new GPL.

But it seems you're not alone in judging the book by an unauthoritative review of its cover.

Re:And you read the GPL3 where, exactly?

[pete-classic]

Dude, it was an off the cuff comment. It was based on the article, not on the GPL v3.0.

Was I really being that obscure?

-Peter

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Kadin2048]

Correct.

So you can't modify some GPLed software and release it under the "Mr. Underbridge Public License" (UPL?), but if you're a developer who just wrote something novel, you can surely apply your license to it.

But obviously you can't take something that's licensed under the GPL and "remove offending portions" that you don't like, before releasing your modifications. That would undermine the whole idea.

However if you're the copyright holder of the original code, as (I believe) Linus is of the kernel, then you could cut the GPL up to your heart's content before applying it to your work. You just can't modify the license on somebody else's work, or on a derivative you've made from their work.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Gaijin42]

Well, things can have more than one opposite :)

Of course I do not claim that the US is communist, and yes Fascism rose to power as a bulwark against Bolshevism. However, the two philosophies as implemented (not as idealized) are pretty similar.

Im not saying corporate takeover of government is a good thing, I'm just saying its not Fascism.

Fascism has a few critera to make a society fascist. (from wikipedia):
  * exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
        * stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
        * engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.

And none of that really fits with the current US situation. Corporations trying to get advantagous tax cuts or regulations is no different than old people trying to get higher social security. You dont accuse the US of being a gerentocracy

Corporations getting everything they want is a "Bad Thing (tm)", but that does not equal a totalitarian state. As your original parent stated, if we were in a totalitarian state, you wouldn't be allowed to say so.

McCarthyite Attempt To Serve Partisan Politics

[reallocate]

>> "...he loses the right to use free software..."

How can I lose my right to something that is free?

If proprietary licenses are wrong, how can a GPL that says I can't use free sotfware be right?

This McCarthyite move represents the bastardization of free software to serve the partisan political agenda of some of its adherents.

And, how is this new GPL to be enforced? Will someone create and maintain a blacklist? How will the GPL Police stop blacklisted individuals from using free software?

Re:McCarthyite Attempt To Serve Partisan Politics

[aXis100]

Free as in Free Speech, not free as in free beer.

free as in ?

[the-build-chicken]

free as in our way or else?

Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[reallocate]

This is just an attempt to hijack the free software movment to serve the political agenda of RMS and others like him. Fundamentally, there is no diference between RMS telling me I can use his code and Microsoft telling me I can't use their code.

Here in the States, the right to patent is guaranteed by the Constitution. if RMs or the FSF sue a company with software patents to prevent them from using free software, the company will argue -- successfully -- that the GPL illegally attempts to restrict their Constitutionally guaranteed right to patent.

Trying to block the use of something you claim is otherwise free to all because a comoany or an individual holds a patent is morally and legally equivalent to refusing to sell to someone because you don't like their voting record. That's illegal and, soon, so will this repressive GPL.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[OpenServe]

This is just an attempt to hijack the free software movment to serve the political agenda of RMS and others like him.

I often don't agree with RMS and his political agenda, but I don't think that is affecting the situation in this case. Slashdot readers have yet again misinterpreted and thus most of the posts on this article are based on these misconceptions.

Here in the States, the right to patent is guaranteed by the Constitution.

First off, this is not true. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create laws such as patent and copyright. It does not require them and it does not guarantee their existance for citizens to use. The founding fathers recognized that such laws would be a double-edged sword and thus implementation was left up to Congress instead. Software patents themselves would likely not pass Constitutional scrutiny, so lets keep things in perspective.

if RMS or the FSF sue a company with software patents to prevent them from using free software, the company will argue -- successfully -- that the GPL illegally attempts to restrict their Constitutionally guaranteed right to patent.

Here's the big misconception: The new version of the GPL doesn't say you can't file for software patents. It says that if you use patents to sue an Open Source project, THEN you lose the right to use software licensed under GPL v3. This is simply a contractual agreement, as is any EULA, and is therefore perfectly legal. Now, whether it should be legal to add stuff like this to a EULA is another matter, but today it is.

Will the changes to GPL have any short-term impact on the Open Source movement? I doubt it. Most companies who are using OSS stand behind its ideals to some degree and would never bite the hand that feeds them. Most companies which hold software patents only do so for defensive purposes. IBM is a good example of both.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[reallocate]

I don't agree with your views of the Constitution and patents, including software patents, but, ignoring that, how is this new GPL to be enforced? I see no chance that courts will uphold a license that attempts to restrict previous and unrelated activity.

This license makes as mch sense as outlawing GPL'd software for people wo wear blue shirts or who eat meat or who otherwise manage to annoy RMS.

RMS is simply trying to advance his own personal partisian political agenda by restricting the rights of others. He has adopted the methods he's been decrying for decades. He has exposed his hypocrisy for all to see.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[OpenServe]

I don't agree with your views of the Constitution and patents

I wasn't stating an opinion. The Constitution does not actually require patents or copyright at all, but merely gives Congress the power to create them. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. If you need more proof, read the various writings of our founding fathers, where you'll find more insight into the spirit of the written law.

, including software patents

Should the patenting of software someday be examined by a high court, it would quite reasonably fail Constitutional scrutiny. The Constitution states that patents may be used to "promote progress of science and the useful arts." Since software patents most decidedly do NOT promote progress and, in fact, quite the opposite, they should not be legal to issue. Software copyright is the only appropriate measure for giving temporary exclusive rights on software ideas and it has worked perfectly well by itself for decades. Patents are fundamentally incompatible with software -- in the same way they are incompatible with literature.

ignoring that, how is this new GPL to be enforced? I see no chance that courts will uphold a license that attempts to restrict previous and unrelated activity.

The GPL is a legal contract, like any other EULA. If you don't agree to the contract, you don't have to enter into it. It can be enforced the same way that any other contracts are enforced. I have no idea where you're coming up with the "restrict previous and unrelated activity" part because that's not at all what's going on here. The new GPL is not retroactive. It does not forbid the patenting of software. It does not claim to overturn existing patents. All it says is that if you sue an Open Source developer on the grounds of a software patent, you no longer have the right to use their software. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about that and there are proprietary software licenses with similar terms.

RMS is simply trying to advance his own personal partisian political agenda by restricting the rights of others.

Who's rights is he trying to restrict? Nobody is forcing anyone to use GPL'ed software. If they choose to do so, they must to agree to the terms set forth by the software's author(s) or else negotiate alternative licensing. This is no different than when you install any proprietary software and click the "Agree" button when the license pops up.

I say again: I don't agree with many of RMS's views, but people are making this out to be something way bigger than it is. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, so if you can find one that has proof otherwise (that this is a big deal) then get them online and tell us why.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[reallocate]

1. I've read the works of the founding fathers, especially Madison's notes from the Convention. They adamantly supported the need to incentivize inventors and authors, which is why they believed in and gave Congress the power to control patents and copyright. If they had opposed patents and copyright, they would have written their ban into the Constitution.

2. ...software patents most decidedly do NOT promote progress and, in fact, quite the opposite... That's certonaly the opinion of the free software folks, strongly colored by ideology. Whether that belief has any relation with reality is a matter of debate. Those opposing that view could argue, for example, and with considerable evidence on their side, that closedd and proprietary and patented software is responsible for the personal computer revolution and its innovations, while free software is essentially marked by incessant minor iterations of white room rewrites of UNIX code from at last two decades ago. One side would point to Windows and the Mac as significant inovations, while the other would point to Linux. But, Linux, it wold be argued, is simply a white room copy of Unix. What innovation is that?

3. Whatever you or I think the new GPL is reasonable is irrelevant. The license is meaningless if not enforced. That means going to court to try to get a court order to prevent someone from using a free software product that was acquired in a perfectly legal manner. E.g. if the user of the software brings a patent case against its developer, the GPL would attempt to bar that person's use of a product that had already been acquired in a perfectly legal manner. I don't see a court agreeing with that.

4. As sketched above, RMS is trying to tell someone that their continued use of a product is contingent upon their future avoidance of activity to which he is ideologically opposed. That's restrictive in my book.

5. There is no "must" about agreeing with the terms of th GPL before using GPL'd software. it runs just fine if you don't read the license. In my opinion, licenses like the GPL and most commercial EULA's carry no more weight that signs often posted in places like auto repair shops: "Enter at Your Own Risk. No Customers." Hanging signs like that in a wide open repair depot won't protect anyone from a suit if a customer walks in and has a transmission dropped on his foot.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[OpenServe]

If they had opposed patents and copyright, they would have written their ban into the Constitution.
I never said they opposed the ideas. They simply had the common sense that this was not something fundamental enough to force upon the nation without going through Congress first.
Those opposing that view could argue, for example, and with considerable evidence on their side, that closed and proprietary and patented software is responsible for the personal computer revolution and its innovations
Software generally wasn't patented throughout the PC revolution, so for the purpose of this discussion this works against your point. Yes, most software during this time was closed source, but this was really the only option before the internet enabled inexpensive widespread collaboration and distribution. Interestingly enough, Bill Gates himself was quoted somewhere around the mid-90's saying that if software had been widely patented, the industry would have been all lawyers and there would have been little innovation for fear of stepping into a minefield. Now that MS dominates so strongly, they casually support software patents because they can be used as a tool against small, nimble competitors. Regardless of whether you are doing closed or open software, software patents are bad news unless you are a corporate giant with a sizeable legal team. Do you really want to see an industry where only the big players can write software without fear of being torn to shreds? Yeah, that's a great incentive for teaching the next generation how to program.. "You can play around Johnny, but don't you dare put your software online.. somebody might sue you"
while free software is essentially marked by incessant minor iterations of white room rewrites of UNIX code from at last two decades ago.
F/OSS is not just Linux and BSD. The body of software that has risen up around them is what is actually significant. True, Linux itself contains little innovation, but then neither does the Windows kernel from release to release. You have to compare apples to apples here.. The F/OSS community and its Java community cousin have had an enormous impact in the area of web-based software, which is quite arguably far more important than new desktop software today. Likewise, there are many examples of how MS and especially Apple have used innovative ideas pioneered in various Open Source GUI environments. It goes both ways, and that's a good thing for everyone.
if the user of the software brings a patent case against its developer, the GPL would attempt to bar that person's use of a product that had already been acquired in a perfectly legal manner.
All software licenses cover use, not just acquisition. If such terms are not legally enforceable in GPL, then many of the terms in proprietary licenses must be invalid as well. Most proprietary licenses include termination clauses that come into effect under certain conditions. I've seen some that even claim the vendor has the right to arbitrarily revoke the license.
In my opinion, licenses like the GPL and most commercial EULA's carry no more weight that signs often posted in places like auto repair shops
If that's true, that might be a good thing overall. But legal cases on record have shown otherwise.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[reallocate]

So, I stay where I was: The Founding Fathers supported patents and explicitly gave Congress the power to regulate them. The founders believed in an individual's right to protect his inventions.

Whether or not software patents might attract lawyers is not relevant. One does not give up a natural right simply because someone else hires a lawyer.

It is of primary importance that people be allowed to exercise their right to protect and benefit from their inventions. The innovative affects that accrue to society are secondary. Better to retain the former and lose the latter than the reverse.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[OpenServe]

The founders believed in an individual's right to protect his inventions.

More specifically, the founders believed that granting a limited protection on certain innovations would speed progress. It was not about individual rights but rather what they believed was best for the nation as a whole.

Whether or not software patents might attract lawyers is not relevant. One does not give up a natural right simply because someone else hires a lawyer.

Unlike life, liberty, speech, etc., copyright and patent are not inalienable, natural, moral rights but rather artificially granted rights. As such, governments choose when and how they should or should not apply, based upon a judgment of their net effect upon society. Most governments in the free world have rightly decided that software patents have a net negative effect on society. Some would argue further that software patents infringe upon the natural right to free speech and are thus trumped by default.

It is of primary importance that people be allowed to exercise their right to protect and benefit from their inventions. The innovative affects that accrue to society are secondary.

As previously stated, this order is the opposite of what the Constitution clearly states.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[reallocate]

>> ...ounders believed that granting a limited protection on certain innovations would speed progress...

Yes, but, first, they believed inventors had a right to protect their inventions.

>> ...copyright and patent are not inalienable, natural, moral rights but rather artificially granted rights...

Wrong. Governments can only protect or thwart existing rights. They cannot create or abolish rights. My right to protect, say, my new book is inherent in the fact that I own and have exclusive rights to the original copy, and that it is literally impossible for anyone else to acquire any rights to that original work -- including the right to read it and to make additional copies -- unless I willingly transfer those rights. Copyright law merely codifies that right, it does not create it. Absent copyright law, my rights still exist; absent copyright law, you acquire no right to use or copy my original work in any way.

>> ...his order is the opposite of what the Constitution clearly states.

On other occasions, you resort to citing what you assert were the intentions of the founders, as outlined in their writings, not the Constitution. Here you confine yourself to asserting hat you argue the Constitution says. The inconsistentcies are obvious.

In any case, the Constitution means what people who are alive today say it means. The Founders themselves immediately began arguing about its interpretation and many of them altered their own views of it. Political conflict, not consensus, is the essence of democracy. Politicians and parties who extol consensus are typically seeeking to limit democracy, impose their own ideology and compel others to act only in accordance with their partisan views.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[OpenServe]

Wrong. Governments can only protect or thwart existing rights. They cannot create or abolish rights.

What is the right to vote if not a created right? If this is a matter of semantics and you'd rather call voting a privilege, then copyright and patent protection also fall into this category.

My right to protect, say, my new book is inherent in the fact that I own and have exclusive rights to the original copy, and that it is literally impossible for anyone else to acquire any rights to that original work -- including the right to read it and to make additional copies -- unless I willingly transfer those rights.

Yes, assuming you don't share the book with anyone and you keep it private. This is because it is your personal private property until the day you die.

Copyright law merely codifies that right, it does not create it.

Copyright law codifies what happens after you've shared your book with others.

Absent copyright law, my rights still exist; absent copyright law, you acquire no right to use or copy my original work in any way.

Absent copyright law, if you share your book, anyone can copy it, create modified copies, or do anything else they please as long as they haven't violated your personal physical property in any way. Copyright is a modern social invention and a very good one when applied with wisdom. Nevertheless, for the vast majority of human history, there was no concept of owning exclusive rights to ideas themselves. This is ample evidence that such is not a natural moral right.

Back to early US history, the original copyright act of 1790 granted protection for 14 years plus an option to renew for another 14. At that time, this term was agreed upon as a fair balance between public and private gain. It seems logical that if Congress, in that day, believed that idea ownership was a natural right, they would have set the term to be the life of the author instead.

In any case, the Constitution means what people who are alive today say it means. The Founders themselves immediately began arguing about its interpretation and many of them altered their own views of it.

This is somewhat the case, so politically speaking it's not entirely black and white. On the other hand, if we do not hold onto the spirit of the original law as best as we can, we risk the compromise of the core tenets of our national identity and fundamental freedoms.

Politicians and parties who extol consensus are typically seeking to limit democracy, impose their own ideology and compel others to act only in accordance with their partisan views.

Sorta like the copyright lobby who want to impose their ideology that ideas can truly be owned and thus deserve infinite protection by the government -- even after the original author is long dead. :)

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[reallocate]

!. I've said nothing about voting or privileges versus rights. I've said the right to protect and benefit from a work i create is a natirual right, not a gift of government. Rights are inalienable, meeaning that no one can take them away. Therefore, government can only attempt to thwart the exercise of rights. If government could create or eliminate rights, then rights would clearly not be inalienable. You would do better to attempt to rebut argument I've made rather than arguments I have not made.

2. If an when I share my book with someone, I share only those rights I choose. If I do not choose to share or transfer the right to copy and redsitribute my work then no one else has that right. The anti-copyright crowd wants to argue that "sharing" (which they've redefined to be a euphemism for "acquisition") involves transfer of all rights. But tht is demonstrably wrong. You have no rights to my work unless I ssay so. Simple acquisition of my work, or a copy of my work, in no way gives you any rights. For example, allowing a publisher to read the manuscript does not also grant that publisher the right to publish the book. He can only acquire that right by my explicit transfer of that right to him. The publishers only acquires the specific rights I transfer. Buyers and readers of the books marketed by the published acquire only those rights I explicitly transfer to them. If I do not share rights with someone, it is impossible for them to acquire those rights. Since all rights regarding the book originate with me, how cojuld anyone else acquire any of those rights unless by trabsfer from me?

3. Throughout human history almost all the rights of almost every human being were oppressed by government, and still are in large measure. You are arguing that if a government blocks the exercise of a right, it is not a natural right. That is obviously incorrect.

4. Who is to determine the "spirit of the original law" if not us? The founders are not alive to tell us. And, I am happy they are not. I would not want to abdicate my responsibilities to make my own decisons to a handful of ancient politicians turned oracles. Why have representatives and judges if every question is best answered by those we agree know the "truth" of the founders' intent? The founders were people just like us, only with a more limited exposure to the world and a weaker commitment to democracy. They certainly did not shy from interpreting the meaning of the Constitution to support their own needs and their own political agendas. If the people who wrote it behaved that way, why should we not also?

5. Copyright is not about ideas. Copyright is about physical objects called books, digitized files, etc. Ideas are non-corporeal creations that cannot be owned, transfered or acquired. If I have an idea for a piece of fiction and create a work of symbolic representation called a book extrapolating from that idea, I have exclusive rights to that book, not the idea. If you have the same idea, I have no right to it or any work you create based on it. if you seek to acquire my idea. we would find that it is impossible to transfer my idea to you without resorting to creating a symbolic expression of it which may, or may not, induce a similar idea in you. The idea is not its expression, and the expression is not the idea. Sloganeering that describes copyright as an "ideology that ideas can truly be owned" is rooted either in deep ignorance or deep crassness.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[iminplaya]

Now you've done it. You opened a real can of worms there :-) All I can say is, Good luck.

Re:Repressive Measure; Won't Stand Legal Muster

[iminplaya]

If they had opposed patents and copyright, they would have written their ban into the Constitution.

Heh. That's just like saying "If they had opposed yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, they have written the exclusion into the first amendment."

Please mod parent up

[Lisandro]

The interesting thing is he can't, even if he wanted to. There are thousands of copyright holders on different bits of Linux. They've all licensed their code under the GPLv2 only. Each one would have to be contacted if Linus wanted to change the license. It's an impossible task.

    Exactly. For the Linux kernel, this is (at this point, atleast) a non-issue. What would happen in the future as new software adopts the new GPL license would be more interesting.

    Someone before said that it's like presenting GPLed software as "free as in speech... as long as you're saying what we want you to say!"; i couldn't agree more. If they're to do this, it's a dumb move.

Crossing the line

[nurb432]

II think the GPL crew are getting really close to crossing the line with this move.

But, there will still be the *truly* free choice, the BSD license.

Yet one more example of why the GPL isnt the best choice out there. They want to dictate what you do with your code.

More FUD?

[smeckert]

This article, published on the Microsoft Newtwork News site, written by some anonmymous
writer at Reuters (by the copyright notice,)
who is ashamed to put a byline on it.

This reeks of F.U.D.

"GPL will keep you from protecting your product."
"Free software is evil."

Who is kidding who here?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

And none of that really fits with the current US situation.

See, now you're just going off the deep end.

exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.

How is this not a near exact description of what's been going on lately?

stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.

Ditto.

engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.

Replace "combined" with "subverted", and you have another match.

Seriously, dude do you not actually pay attention to anything going on? I'm not sure how you could list those requirements and ignore how accurate it is.

Please don't try any of that tired, dried up old "But the Republicans are the small governemnt party" since that hasn't even been a rational statement for about 30 years.

Taxation?-BSD ideas just want to be free.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is about free software. The BSD is about free ideas.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tolkienfan]

My guess is that the clause will be triggered by any company attempting to sue over infringing GPLed (or possibly other free) software.

MSNBC is TROLLING

[dmaxwell]

http://lwn.net/Articles/150464/

To summarize:

"Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.

.
.
.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.

It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.

That has been a most unpleasant experience."

Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Gaijin42]

There may be some (of all political pursuasions) that are very patriotic, and put the nation above all. I think I might have heard a quote from one of them once. Something about "ask not..."

However, I find very few people (of any political pursuasion) putting "the party" above all. In fact, the very fact that there are two parties duking it out, and several smaller parties grabbing up crumbs really blows that argument out of the water.

America has time and time again been accused of being too individualistic; that everyone puts "me" first. That doesn't sound very fascist.

There are hundreds of "leaders" in the US. The concept of a single charismatic leader that everyone worshiped hasn't been around since JFK, and to a SIGNIFICANLY lesser degree Clinton. Bush is no where in the ballpark. The vast majority of even conservatives said he was pretty mediocre, but the alternitives were worse. That being said, he is the president, and yes everyone follows his lead. They do that in england, germany, france, and everywhere else too. Having a leader does not make you fascist.

There is a single culture forming, but I personally think that has more to do with national and worldwide media, and media conglomeration, along with franchise development and urban sprawl. The unified culture doesn't have much to do with politics, except in a select few hot-topics (gay issues, abortion, etc) The very fact that they ARE hot topics again shows that there is not a single unified culture.

On the last point, again you are ignoring my central issue. Yes corporations are doing bad things. but they aren't creating fascism. And the bad things they are doing are the exact same bad things that every other special interest group is doing. I am not defending them in the slightest for their corruption. Im just sayin it isnt fascism.

Too restrictive

[Anonymous Coward]

I felt that the success of the GPL licence is because it lets anyone use and change the software without having to worry about restrictions, and so long as the freedom is used responsibly, there shouldn't need to be any patent or DRM clauses in the licence, in my opinion.

If there really is a need for a clause, then I think something less restrictive would be better, such as...

If you use a software patent to start or threaten to start legal action on those who make or use GPL'd works, then you no longer have permission to use any GPL'd works that are infringing on the software patent.

The only reason for this is to dissuade those holding lots of patents to launce a legal offensive, by reducing the amount of GPL software that they can use, but even that seems unnecessary.

Unless a balance can be found, where you can appease the likes of IBM and reduce the potential SCO's of the world at the same time, I think a less restrictive GPL, rather than a more restrictive one, is the way to go.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

if you mean paid by the school, receiving a paycheck, then yes. if you mean paid specifically for the program, then no. I started it as a personal project, was asked by our tech coordinator if I knew of something, said I have been working on this...So, the program is wholly mine to give to the school, or sell, should I desire.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Jherek Carnelian]

I'm not sure what the penalties are supposed to be either (and fsf.org doesn't seem to say, at least not without digging), but if they go as far as saying that the company can't use GPL'd software, then that'll go over like a lead balloon.

Being a long-time observer of GNU and the GPL I'm confident in going out on a limb and predicting what such penalties would be. They would be identical to the penalities for using proprietary software - i.e. you can't use GPL'd code in a program that contains implementations of software patents nor implementations of DRM.

Actually, the current mess with patents in the US, software and other, would be greatly improved if the Patent Office would merely apply it's own rules -- that something to be patented must not be obvious to the layperson, and must not be covered by prior art.

Those are not the rules. More specifically "not be obvious to the layperson" is not a rule. In section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, it is required that an innovation be of a ''nonobvious'' nature, that is, it must not be an improvement that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art.

You could argue that something obvious to a layman would be doubly obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, but you could also argue that one with "ordinary skill" may also be wearing mental blinders because of that training, preventing them from thinking out of the box in the way that a layman might do more easily.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[TuballoyThunder]

You posted what I was about to say. I just love the irony of GPL becoming less free in order to encourage a behavior. The very idea is 180 out from what free software is fundamentally about. If this change is adopted then the GPL sold its soul.

Some may argue that this change is to help promote additional freedom--a restriction for the greater good. There are so many quotes that come to mind, my favorite are

• "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin (possibly)
• "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will You either believe in free software or you don't." - Yoda (obligatory for the /. crowd)

Bottom line--either you are for free software or you are not.

I don't get the uproar...

[rpdillon]

This isn't really that big of a deal according to the article. All the clause would say is that if you file against a piece of free software for patent infringement, you lose your right to use *that piece of software*.

I simply don't understand why Linux couldn't be released under this license...it is a great idea. It doesn't even mean that the big guys like MS and IBM can't hold software patents...it simply encourages them not to file against free software in those patents by revoking their license to use the free software they file against. In IBM's case, they have already vowed not to enforce some of their software patents with free software, so adoption there wouldn't be such a stretch.

Honestly, I can see some reasons why the GPL v3.0 won't get widespread adoption, but none of the reasons in this article are compelling. The main debate is whether the measures the new GPL would take would be effective in curbing the commercial industries enthusiasm for software patents. Time will tell.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Would we have a CVS access to the Cedega sources if wine wasn't GPL'd?

Thanks RMS

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, and does anyone know weather or not this would allow Microsoft to continue their Linux vs Windows TCO analysis?

You don't need a whetherman to know which way the wind blows.

Patents are Consitutionally protected property

[riversky]

So would this CLEARLY make the GPL unconstitutional?? An attorney friend told me YES. Let the free software market (Linux) and the proprietary market (Windows and MAC OS) fight for market share. Only when they fear each other is there real innovation. I use Linux but will fight this. It goes WAY to far. Get rid of the stupidity in software patents but let real innovators (especially small guys) get paid. Or I will ask that all programmers must work for free....Oh yah slavery is uncontitutional too. My bad...

Re:Patents are Consitutionally protected property

[aXis100]

Penalising patents doesnt stop people getting paid. You dont need to patent an application to gain protection - it would be inherantly covered by copywrite. You can *even* still sell it - open source doesnt prevent that.

Software patents are stupid because they prevent people from learning from other code and improving. As an example, imagine if pop-up dialogs, drop down menus or windowing systems were patented.

Just like Apache 2.0 license

[Anonymous Coward]

This new idea for GPL is very similar to the clause in the Apache 2.0 License that prohibits Apache users from bringing IP claims against any Apache license. It has worked very well for them, obviously.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

There may be some (of all political pursuasions) that are very patriotic, and put the nation above all. I think I might have heard a quote from one of them once. Something about "ask not..."

There is a very large difference between being patriotic and "exalts the nation and party ".

However, I find very few people (of any political pursuasion) putting "the party" above all.

Then, quite frankly, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years or so.
The Democrats certainly aren't innocent in this, but it has been the Republican party's main technique for a long time. Jesus, Dude. I mean they even coined the term RINO for anybody who puts anything above the party and they have viciously attacked them.

In fact, the very fact that there are two parties duking it out, and several smaller parties grabbing up crumbs really blows that argument out of the water.

Hardly. The fact that there are 2 primarily right wing parties (one of whom also includes Left-Fascists) who only differ on a few big issues and no real third parties is a very large problem.
You yourself even make this point a few sentences later "The vast majority of even conservatives said he was pretty mediocre, but the alternitives were worse. "
Seriously, Dude. Even you recognise the problem, but you don't seem to be able to put it in perspective.

America has time and time again been accused of being too individualistic; that everyone puts "me" first. That doesn't sound very fascist.

Certainly it's true that we have that reputation, but it has zero to do with the subject.
The culture is fairly individualistic, but the government right now is fascist. You have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise and have, in fact, furthered that point.

Having a leader does not make you fascist.

Having a leader who claims to have been sent by god does. Especially when pretty much nothing he does is consistent with that.

The unified culture doesn't have much to do with politics, except in a select few hot-topics (gay issues, abortion, etc) The very fact that they ARE hot topics again shows that there is not a single unified culture.

You're so close, but your blinders are thick, friend.
The unified culture is a corporate culture of consumption. The major corporations write a lot of our laws now. They meet with our leaders to set our policy behind closed doors and do everything in their power to prevent us from even knowing who was there.

Again, just look at what you said it is at odds with what you are trying to demonstrate with it:
stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.

Stresses loyalty as in, You're either with me or you are an enemy.
Submission to a single culture as in, Amending the constitution to outlaw other cultures.

I am not defending them in the slightest for their corruption. Im just sayin it isnt fascism

But you actually are saying it. You just can't even recognise it.

You clearly didn't read the links I put in my last post, but I would really encourage you to.

DRM...

[jonwil]

I think that GPLv3 should contain something that basicly says that you cant use GPL code if trusted computing or DRM is required in order to use the resulting binary (e.g. if sony were to use GPL code under a GPL with this clause on the PS3 where all code needs to be signed then it would violate this clause)

Code signing done by the end user where they have the keys and can sign whatever they want (e.g. signing done to detect tampering) would not be covered by this.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Nimrangul]

Wine isn't licenced under the GPL, it's under the LGPL.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[NickFortune]

How about fixing the patent system instead, and getting rid of the brain-dead software patent examiners who have no clue what's "obvious to someone in the field" or not?

Well...

• Because it will always be in the interests of large corporations to try and abuse the system. And they have more resources to expend on corrupting it than we do on defending it.
• Because companies like Microsoft can spam the patent office to death, whatever the workforce and however knowledgeable. Raising cost of patents will not cure this, it will simply ensure that the poor inventor, the one the system allegedly is there to protect, cannot afford to enter, and that only big corporations will possess patents.
• Because there is evidence to show that patents do not stimulate economic growth. Rather that they chill innovation and expansion but preserve the status quo, making it easier for established companies to preserve their profit margin without effort, and to lock out newcomers who might otherwise compete.
• Even if the system were to be reformed tomorrow, the vast body of patents that have been already granted remain problematical. To examine all of them to see if they should be overturned or not would be a herculean task, exacerbated by legal challenges and delaying tactics.
• As applied to software: they ain't needed to turn a profit, they don't protect the small inventor as their supporters claim, and they provide a mechanism for large corporations to neutralise the legitimate IP of small enterprises and single developers. They don't work, they're not needed and they're bad.

the 1-click purchase, is actually an example of a good patent.

Ain't no such animal. For reasons, see above.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

My guess is that the clause will be triggered by any company attempting to sue over infringing GPLed (or possibly other free) software.

Patent assertion rarely involves lawsuits. Because patent litigation is hideously expensive, so sending a shake-down letter to an accused infringer often prompts a settlement. It need not even be a "we own all your code, pay us all your money" style letter. Many are simply worded: "please review your products in light of U.S. patent no. 6,543,210." Is merely referencing a patent sufficient?

Foregoing that - what if a competitor files for declaratory judgment that your patents are invalid or not infringed by its software? Does your company violate the GPL by defending the validity and potential infringement of its patents? If so, might a competitor file this action for the express purpose of causing this result?

How about countersuing? Does that trigger an en masse revocation of the GPL for your company? Aren't some Linux companies asserting some software patents in an attempt to ward off SCO?

And how about asking a court for a temporary restraining order (a/k/a preliminary injunction)? That's an ex parte determination, so it's not really a lawsuit. Same with a request for reexamination of a patent by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Etc.

Law is complex. You can't finesse a solution to a complex problem with an elephant gun. Richard Stallman should stick to software, and leave the nasty business law stuff to the (potentially nasty) business lawyers.

- David Stein

fsfucking hypocrites

[nobody/incognito]

so much for "free as in free speech."  fucking hypocrites.

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.
   Noam Chomsky

Hypocrites

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

They rejected a moral license, so why are they making a political one?

Here's the relevant parts:

The restrictions in the HESSLA prohibit specific activities that are inexcusable: violations of human rights, and introduction of features that spy on the user. People might ask why we do not declare an exception for these particular restrictions--why do we stick to the general policy of rejecting all restrictions on use and on the functionality of modified versions? (emphasis mine)

If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free software, here would be the place to do it. But it would be a mistake to do so: it would weaken our general stand, and would achieve nothing. ... Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based source license can't restrict use of the program; such a restriction is not enforcible anyway.

The article doesn't say how they're going to enforce this, but either they can just rant about it in classic FSF style and get ignored, or they can restrict the license to people who don't patent, cause a great controversy, and make people stick with GPLv2 out of safety - while violating their own principles in the act.

By the way, this isn't Stallman that said this, it's the president of FSF Europe who's somehow even more radical than Stallman (I didn't think that was possible).

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[ckaminski]

Remember, that the GPL doesn't primarily protect the developer's Freedom, it protects the USERS!

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

The new licence does not say that you cannot charge for your work. It is designed to be incompatible with Patents and DRM. This is distinct to copyright.

The GPL is rather silly in this regard. Under Section 1, you may charge a fee for sending your program derived from GPLed code to a third party. But consider the combined effect of these clauses:

• Section 2 requires mandatory and free licensing of that derivative.
• Section 3 requires you to let the recipient distribute your derivative product at will under the GPL.
• Section 6 bars you from restricting the recipients' rights to anything narrower than the GPL.

Thus - you may charge a fee for sending the program to anyone else, but you can't stop them from distributing it for free to anyone else. Even worse, they can resell your software and give you nothing.

This is not how software businesses survive. And this does not even approximate the ordinary workings of copyright.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[ckaminski]

If this change is adopted then the GPL sold its soul.
</quote>

I do not concur. The GPL additions under consideration would make patent attacks against GPL v3 projects have bite: the attacker may no longer use GPL v3 projects. For those patent owners who do not care about a GPL project using their patent, ie. they gain more benefit from F/OSS than they could potentially gain from patent licensing, the F/OSS world gains a patent for free.

For a corporation, it simply means that F/OSS becomes your competitor. It doesn't mean that your patent is now public domain for the likes of Microsoft or IBM to use. It just behooves you to make your product that much better than the competition.

This addition is designed to prevent the next One-Click absurdity. If Amazon gains so much benefit from Linux and Apache, then arguably, an implementation of osCommerce that implements One-Click should be immune to patent attack.

I'm not sure how I feel about this at this time, but I can understand why some people feel that it is needed.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

and how does crippling the software with DRM or patents...

Software is "crippled" by patents? How so?

If you mean "software" as in a software product: Patents don't cover the patentee's particular software product. You're thinking of copyright. When someone misuses a company's software, e.g. off-license distribution (I refuse to use the stupid term "piracy"), the company usually asserts its copyright. If you want to rant about copyright, that's a whole different issue.

If you mean "software" as in the inventive software concept: Most companies that patent software choose this as an alternative to a much older tactic - trade secrets. And while software binaries can be reverse engineered, most companies prohibit reverse engineering in the license agreement. So it's still illegal, just in a context not involving patents.

So what's the net difference between a software patent and a trade-secret/reverse-engineering-prohibiting-licen se arrangement? The primary difference is that a software patentee discloses his entire invention to the public, rather than keeps it secret forever. If either option "cripples" software, it's the latter.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

if you're arguing that we're far more a socialist state, then i'd totally agree. even though we've a far smaller percentage of gdp from gov't spending, it's a creeping mentality, schools, health care, etc. think about the katrina aftermath. people are blaming the government for inaction. it's as if they can't function without it. i'm not talking about the indigent, that's different, but those that sit around and wait to be taken care of. it's problematic.

do the "corporations" have too much power? sure. but it spans ideology. the left wants open borders to dilute and destroy the American culture, and the right wants open borders to drive down labor costs. the left wants big government to protect "open space", the environment, etc., the right wants big government b usiness relationships all the same. is there a difference? hardly. i am a federalist, small government conservative. i would vote against gay marriage, but if my state voted for it, then it's the law. i accept that. neither the right nor the left would accept voting. both want the courts to impose the law. it's sad.

given the level of protest and poltical virulency, it's hardly that we're a fascist state. what the real problem is is that we've cocooned ourselves into our little enclaves. think about the red/blue map. you could drive from coast to coast and never leave a red county. the red gets redder, the blue gets bluer. the blue "enclaves" and th red sprawl rarely come into contact. they see each other less frequently, interact less with them, and end of with a caricatured view of each other.

the right (of which I would consider myself) are not neanderthals, gun toting, bible thumping, women opressing nut cases. the left are not commie appeasing, terrorist supproting, baby killing, environmental wackos. but we see each other as such. and we become more polarized. so you, who don't agree with the president (and by the way, neither do I on many things: immigration, spending, trade, education, etc. in fact damn near everything except the war on terror) only see him and his supporters in the distance. you know few who voted for him, or few who would openly say so.

perhaps my station, a public school teacher, gives me appreciation for "minority" status. I am the "other". I know how many view me, hell, they've as much called me it many times. perspective is, as always, a valuable commodity.

yes, state and corporate power are merged as you say, but it's hardly a move rightward. they want all the big government amenities and protections. when I said that the protests are the very contradictory evidence, it is ironic at best, tragic at worst, that bush is called hitler, mocked in films, belittled by public office holders, and slandered in the worst way almost reflexively by people so ibued with the zeal they chastise him for. as for tolerance of dissent, the left is equally guilty. but like I said, we hardly know each other anymore.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Being a long-time observer of GNU and the GPL I'm confident in going out on a limb and predicting what such penalties would be. They would be identical to the penalities for using proprietary software - i.e. you can't use GPL'd code in a program that contains implementations of software patents nor implementations of DRM.

That raises a very interesting question: Who enforces this rule?

Let me illustrate a typical case where someone would want to trigger this rule. Let's say you're Microsoft. You take some GPLed code - e.g., an algorithm for converting binary-coded-decimal numbers to pure binary representations (see Gottschalk v. Benson) - and then you patent an improvement to this process, and you embody the patented improved GPL code in a product, say, Clippy's Wild Advntures.

A competitor takes your improved BCD idea and embeds it in his product - let's call it's Eidos's new game, Tomb Raider: BCD Adventures. You sue for patent infringement; they want to raise this novel GPL defense against you.

Now, how would that play out?

The dispute over the patent does not involve your embodiment of the patented algorithm, i.e., Clippy's Wild Adventures. It involves your patent and Eidos's game. Eidos would have to go fishing through your products, including totally unrelated ones, for an embodiment of the patent. Thus, if Eidos asks you if you had an embodiment of the software, you could refuse to answer the question as irrelevant to the dispute over your patent and their product. And it can't just go reverse-engineering all of your products: in addition to be wildly expensive, this would probably violate their software licenses to each of the products.

Worse: Even if Eidos proved that you had violated the GPL, it doesn't help them. It merely creates a new, totally unrelated dispute between you and the Free Software Foundation. Eidos is still on the hook for infringement of your patent.

So why would Eidos go fishing? Answer: It wouldn't. The only party with an interest in enforcing the GNU license violation is the FSF - which doesn't have the resources to do so.

In other words: This is totally pointless.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Remember, that the GPL doesn't primarily protect the developer's Freedom, it protects the USERS!

Well, to be clear - it primarily protects users who are also developers. The defining trait of the GPL is that your users may modify your code and pass along the modification on similar terms. If you just want to give rights to non-developer users, then much more restrictive licenses are just as good.

- David Stein

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Cyno]

There's nothing magic about the GPL where these projects would somehow not exist without it. You need to use reason - something you socialists/communists hate doing.

Anyway, I read the GPL. There's nothing magic about it. True. Just like there's nothing magic about electricity.

But somehow, with all their limitless knowledge and intellect, people still miss the point.

What do terrorists, communists, socialists, pagans, anarchists, and Linux developers have in common?

McCarthyism.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

However, the meaning of the word corporate here has almost exactly the opposite of the way we think of the word today.

May those with mod points reward you. This is an extraordinarily interesting point, even if off-topic.

You seem like the right person to answer this question: Is there a term for the kind of corruption we have today - corporations fully co-opting government?

On the one hand, I suspect there is, since this isn't a new concept. Even Adam Smith was terrified that laissez-faire economics would cause corporations to amass enough money to do so.

On the other hand, maybe not. I think that such amazing power to control the masses via advertising/savvy media skills is a recent invention.

If no term is available, can we coin one? Foxism, maybe?

- David Stein

Can't you just use an old GPL?

[planetoid]

What's to stop you from using an older version of the GPL to bypass this retaliation clause? Or are updates to the GPL retro-active to older licenses even if older GPL licenses don't have those changes reflected in their texts?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

My suspicion is that, if IBM holds patents that threaten Free Software, RMS doesnt care if they're a strong Linux advocate -- he would rather force them to grant a license to all their software patents to any and all software released under the GPL.

That would be a disaster for IBM and any other GPL-relying company.

Why has IBM built up a massive patent arsenal but rarely used it? It's a defensive measure. If anyone sues IBM for patent infringement, it can threaten to counter-assert its 40,456 patents.

Now imagine if IBM had to grant that attacking company free licenses under all software (and patents) developed using GPLed code. Doesn't that vastly undermine IBM's defensive patent strategy? Broadly extrapolating: Doesn't this render any company utilizing GPLed software a magnet for infringement lawsuits from non-GPL-reliant companies?

- David Stein

braindead

[delong]

"Punish" those who patent software?

Most braindead childish idea I've read in a long time. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What's next? Foot stamping?

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!11!!one!!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Linux is GPL 2.0 only. No later version allowed (unless you can get *everyone* to agree to the new version). If it has a "2.0 OR LATER," clause you can still use the 2.0 licensed software. Nothing is (yet) licensed under 3.0 (mostly because it DOESN'T EXIST YET), therefore you might have to go 3.0 for updates, but you can use all the existing 2.0 software you have under the GPL 2.0 and pretend that 3.0 doesn't exist. You can even make GPL 2.0 only forks of the stuff you have already if you want to make sure they'll never be GPL 3.0.

2) This is a draft. This is only a draft. If it's so terrible, READ IT (instead of whining on Slashdot) and then COMMENT to the appropriate folks (that would be the FSF, NOT Slashdot...).

3) I sincerely doubt it is anywhere near as terrible as you make it seem ("oh no! it forbids us from merely *having* patents or copyrights or trade secrets or trademarks!"), and I strongly suspect you don't understand it. Assuming, of course, that you've read it.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled rants.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Suns latest licence (for OpenSolaris) attacks patents with copyrights: it states that you may not even _use_ the software if you sue someone (for using the sw) over any patent (within the sw in question).

Maybe this is what GPL 3 states?

This is a good thing

[shaitand]

There are those who pipe up and call loudly about anything sounding like a restriction. And then there are the BSD license nuts who are mostly on Microsoft's payroll and paid to make enough noise on slashdot that developers who lurk here slowly warm to their ideas as they sound more and more like groupspeak (inate herd mentality).

But, this restriction is there for the same purpose as the first. DRM and software patents are both technology that undermine the license. If I release code under the GPL but patent concepts in that code, I have successfully poisoned the code. Anyone who actually utilizes the freedoms of the GPL has violated my patent.

The problem becomes more obvious when I contribute patented code to a GPL'd program or my derivative of a GPL'd program. That could prevent the original author from being able to merge my changes back.

Please remember guys, the motives behind a push to allow software patents, drm, and non-open derivatives comes from those who leech from the community or want to circumvent the spirit of free exchange.

Of course, the tax thing is silly. Actually there were artists, musicians, and actors before there were even copyrights. They performed and created their art because they *gasp* enjoyed doing so. If they made a living from their work it was because they found a patron. I dunno about you, but I don't think the change in motivation for artists to cash from love of art has really improved the quality of those materials. YMMV.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tehdaemon]

Yup, that is why Red Hat went bankrupt so quickly.

Oh, wait a minute..

If you had said, 'the GPL makes the software industry less profitable.' I would have agreed. While Red Hat doesn't make as much as M$, it manages to make money.

FUD.

not credible

[cahiha]

I don't see anything on the FSF site that supports the MSNBC story, and it sounds like FUD to me. The FSF will likely adopt specific measures against software patents in the GPL, but I doubt they will be as general as "penalizing" anybody who has software patents. That just wouldn't work because many supporters and contributors to FOSS projects have software patents--both individuals and companies--for a wide variety of reasons.

What the GPL could do is clarify and make implicit what is already implied: if you distribute GPL'ed software, you automatically give everybody a license to all your applicable patents that are necessary to use the software as you distributed it, no more and no less.

Ultimately, if you want to know what GPLv3 contains, you'll have to look at the drafts and participate in the FSF discussions. If you have done that, maybe you can tell us more about it. An MSNBC reporter who heard about it last Tuesday is both insufficiently well informed and far too biased to make a credible evaluation.

MSNBC FUD

[cahiha]

That one is bold.

You're incorrectly assuming that MSNBC is accurately reporting on the GPL and the FSF. I can find no support for these claims on the FSF web site. So far, this looks like FUD to me, which wouldn't be suprising from an MSNBC reporter.

The GPLv3 probably will contain explicit provisions about software patents and DRM, but not the retributory and ill-advised penalties that the MSNBC reporter implies.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[mOdQuArK!]

This is not how software businesses survive.

Software businesses can survive just fine by providing services. They just won't be able to make a profit by selling software the same way as a real product. That's one of the main motivations for the GPL.

not new

[cahiha]

So, not "companies using software patents lose rights to GPL software," more like "if a company uses patents to attack $GPL_SOFT_PACKAGE, they forfeit rights to $GPL_SOFT_PACKAGE". Sounds fairly reasonable to me.

I think that's actually what the current GPL implies anyway. So, it's not so much a change in policy, but a clarification.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[cahiha]

Works great for Microsoft, Sun, and Apple, too: they have made a big business out of taking BSD-licensed software, altering it to make it incompatible, and then trying to replace existing, open standards with it. For some kinds of software, the BSD license is good; for a lot of software, it is a bad idea.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Yup, that is why Red Hat went bankrupt so quickly. Oh, wait a minute..

Red Hat's primary product is not its Linux distro. That may be its most visible feature to most consumers, but that's not really its business. The distro is essentially advertising for its core product, which is technical support.

Google operates the same way: the search engine is its most visible facet, but its core business is selling sponsored links. In this way, it's backwards: its search engine is advertising for its core product, which is an advertising conduit.

But, in fact, this is the exception that proves the rule. The rule is: GPL-derived software is not commercially viable as a product. You may be able to exploit it, e.g., as leverage for a related service or a related (non-GPLed) product. But if your business plan involves selling GPL-dependent software, you'd better keep your resume close at hand.

- David Stein

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Tankko]

Um... Wasn't that the point of "trusted computing"? Please correct me if I am wrong and I'd rather be wrong in this situation.

No, trusted computing is a way for someone that *wants* DRM to be sure that it is valid.

If you don't want DRM on the music/video/etc your create, don't add it. problem solved.

The fact that people really think that Trusted Computing would mean every single thing created would automatically have DRM is proof of the paranoia around this.

P.S.

Not that I am a fan of TC...btw

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[cahiha]

So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.

We live in a free country. Does that mean you can do whatever you like? Is it permissible for you to steal, rape, or murder? No, it is not: even in a free country, you are restricted in what you can do--because that's the only way to guarantee a common level of freedom to everybody.

It's the same with free software: it gives a set of well-specified freedoms to everybody, instead of letting a few individuals and organizations get away with murder while everybody else suffers under them.

This marks the end of any relevance the GPL has. I wonder what will replace it?

The article is just part of MSNBC FUD against open source and free software, with no credible sources. Geez, people like you are so easy to manipulate.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[cahiha]

However, the idea that you can't use GPL software at all if you patent software or use DRM, well, that's nuts.

Yes, it is also MSNBC FUD rather than fact (see the other posts).

Perhaps you should read and think about the news a little more critically before jumping to conclusions.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Software businesses can survive just fine by providing services.

That's an oft-cited model. It's also baffling to me.

A software product that requires you to call Technical Support, even once, has failed you as a customer. It needs better documentation, or a user interface overhaul, or a security or stability upgrade, or a more coordinated online community. (More likely, a combination of these factors.) Taken the next step: A software product that requires you to keep paid company support permanently on hand has cataclysmic failed you as a customer.

More simply put: Well-designed software, de facto, does not require you to pay someone else to help you use it.

Red Hat seems to get away with it because we expect OSes to be flaky and complex and in need of support. We see it as the open source equivalent of a patching service. We don't see this as an asset; we see it as an annoyance that's tolerable because the TCO is still better than Microsoft's. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Here's what I just don't get about advocates of this concept. What do you think of the "software rental model," where you don't own the software, but you have a limited-term lease and have to keep paying? Bogus, right? Why? Because we inherently feel that software sales should be a one-shot deal: you pay the price, and you use it indefinitely.

If you agree with this, then what's the difference between paying continuously for use, and paying continuously for access to a user manual? Is it just the fact that one initiative is sponsored by a company we like, and the other by a company we hate? Is that remotely logical?

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[mOdQuArK!]

That's an oft-cited model. It's also baffling to me.

That's because you can't get the idea of software-as-product out of your head. If you want a solid business model that doesn't depend on copyright law, then you make a living by charging for SERVICES.

Does a plumber charge you every time you use something they fixed? No, you tell them what the problem is, they fix it, charge you for the work & then go off to the next job. If they want to keep earning money, they have to keep fixing things.

Why should programmers be treated any differently? Somebody wants software created or modified, software developer does the work, gets paid, goes on to do the next job. There's no reason other than greed for someone to expect to keep getting paid over and over for one act of creation.

They state it as a goal but that's about it

[SuperKendall]

Look at it here, they do emntion that is a goal but don't seem to put any force behind stopping people from doing so if they wish.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[aCapitalist]

Seek professional help for your obvious problem.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[anthony_dipierro]

This marks the end of any relevance the GPL has. I wonder what will replace it?

Hopefully CC-BY-SA.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[moro_666]

you are probably just another one of those who dont read the previous post at all, just pick some words from it and roll on ....

i was just noting down that not everything can be free

and the windshield inventing is a very good analogy ffs, if you invent something really good, you would like to make profit from it. people dont sit at biomedic labs from day-to-day to make living from polishing the apothecery floor one week later, they want to patent the stuff they create and make profit from it. in certain very fine lines of programming this should be the same.

people try to climb out of the blue-sky illusion box and check outside the door, there's a real world out there.

assume this for a second, you write something really good, decide that this is nogood for free software movement anyway (lets say some mysterious application that makes windows secure), you invest tons of money into developing its tricky code which is better than anything seen so far. you cross your fingers and make the first release, selling it 25$ a piece. 3 days later a russian schoolboy with a pc emulator starts to sell his version of the thing, it seems that he backtraced your code in the emulator and since it is HIS code now that he wrote (without spending any investments everywhere) he will start to sell it as Igorsky AntiVirus, only 15$ a piece... so without any possibility of patents you are probably in some very deep trouble now. no way even to get the money back that you deserve for inventing the stuff.

dont get me wrong now, i agree that patents on really simple and silly things are crap, serious crap. but on the other side, if nothing can be patented, then the software inventors have no real motivation to invent anything, because they wont earn anything from it (except experience and wisdom).

really difficult technologies should be protected by something, i just dont know if the patent itself is the ultimate thing, but its the closest this far. and a textfile with gpl text doesnt actually protect your code from anything nor will it really protect your investments.

as for the gpl licence, people dont start to dig a hole under the place where you are standing. such changes to the licence sure will look good in the ideological platform but dont make it any easier for the commercial companies like adobe/real/corel etc. to migrate into our linux world.

it may sound good, but it will mostly bring only trouble and commercial people will just roll back from the gpl to something else, probably to something that we dont like.

we all would like to get everything for free, but everything just cant be real.

and as odd as it may sound, not all of us want to live from servicing the software and its usage (at least i dont), cause its bad profit and with a short perspective.

and if anyone within reading radius can tell me how my first post was a troll, please do it :D

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[anthony_dipierro]

However, the idea that you can't use GPL software at all if you patent software or use DRM, well, that's nuts.

I kind of like it. I thought about creating a license where basically I agree to never sue you for copyright infringement if you agree never to sue me for copyright infringement. But I wasn't sure how to make it legally enforcible.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

That's because you can't get the idea of software-as-product out of your head. If you want a solid business model that doesn't depend on copyright law, then you make a living by charging for SERVICES.

No, see, I completely understand why a software company would want that model to succeed. I similarly understand why the media industry wants DRM.

In both cases, I can't see why customers would want it. That creates a ripe opportunity for a competitor to give them a more favorable one. Examples: DivX died a painful but much-deserved death to DVD circa 1999; long-term cellphone contracts had their market shares stolen by no-contract businesses.

Does a plumber charge you every time you use something they fixed? ... Why should programmers be treated any differently?

Pipes carry water. We expect them to rust, seals to fail, toilets to clog. Physical apparatuses experience wear and tear - it's unavoidable. Customers accept that.

Software has no such inherent limitation. If your company thrives on having people pay for software fixes, then face it - your software sucks.

Somebody wants software created or modified, software developer does the work, gets paid, goes on to do the next job.

So instead of buying software that works as you expect right out of the box, you get some raw materials for free, and then you have to spend time and money paying someone to make it work for you? Is that how it works?

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tehdaemon]

Red Hat makes a linux distro. Microsoft makes an OS. Red Hat sells a linux distro. Microsoft sells an OS. Red Hat sells suppport services for their linux distro. Microsoft sells support services for their OS. Red Hat makes money. Microsoft makes money. The fact[1] that Microsoft makes a larger percent of their revenue from OS sales than Red Hat does is a distinction without a difference. Especially since Red Hat dropped (spun off? , outsourced? what would you call fedora?) their non-enterprise edition.

Pet peeve time. Exceptions don't make rules. they weaken/break them. The phrase makes no sense at all. Exceptions may make you notice that the rule is often true, but at the same time they prove that the rule is weak - or mabe just plain wrong.

"But if your business plan involves selling GPL-dependent software, you'd better keep your resume close at hand."

Sounds a lot like 'But if your business plan involves selling Microsoft-dependent software,(and you are not Microsoft) you'd better keep your resume close at hand." The reason is the same in both cases. Fierce competition. I did not say that GPLed stuff is easy to make money off of, just that it is possible.

That said, your rule only applies if you are trying to sell multiple copies of the same piece of GPLed software - and it is not all your GPLed software. If it is not yours, why the hell do you expect to make money selling it? And if it is all yours, well, AFAIK, MySQL is doing just fine as well.

[1] I assume this is true, but I really don't have any data to prove it. Comments?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Red Hat sells suppport services for their linux distro. Microsoft sells support services for their OS.

Never mind the total revenue - let me ask this: How often does the average user have to pay Microsoft to fix a problem with their OS?

Certainly there are companies that would like to pay to have their software heavily and exactingly customized, or to have extremely rare, highly case-specific bugs fixed immediately. It's good that those services are available. The question is how frequently those calls have to be made. If it's so often that it's your primary source of income, then your software is probably broken beyond repair.

Frankly, I can't believe we're debating this. Imagine a line of dirt-cheap automobiles that required mechanical adjustments every time you drove to a new city. If you plan to take many road trips to various unknown destinations, why would you ever put up with this hassle? Why not pay more for a car that goes everywhere for free?

Pet peeve time. Exceptions don't make rules. they weaken/break them.

The phrase means: "If you have to go to that extreme to find a counterexample, then that shows the strength of the rule in the typical case." This exchange was a perfect example of that. Consider our dialogue, condensed:

A: "Companies can't survive by selling GPLed software."
B: "Red Hat sells GPLed software, and they survive fine."
A: "Red Hat survives despite selling GPLed software - its distro is a large net loss. It socks up the losses by deriving income from an ancillary service. Your example just strengthens my point."

Sounds a lot like 'But if your business plan involves selling Microsoft-dependent software,(and you are not Microsoft) you'd better keep your resume close at hand."

Well, yeah, because your business model is illegal and you're going to jail.

If you are Microsoft, though, you do very well selling Microsoft software. Similarly, if you are Adobe, then you do well selling Photoshop. Show me a company that has made enterprise-scale profits by selling GPLed software - not an ancillary service, but the actual software.

AFAIK, MySQL is doing just fine as well.

1) They do well because they sell ancillary support. In fact, a whole lot of other companies also profit from MySQL support services.

2) MySQL does well because it doesn't have any competitors in its niche: a small, lightweight, scalable DMBS. It succeeds for the same reason WinZip succeeds: no one else really wants its space at present.

That is going to change. Microsoft's future OSes will increasingly have native DBMS capabilities. It starts with WinFS, a file system based on a relational database, and ADO.NET, which provides (clumsy) format-independent data access. Let's return to this conversation in, let's say, 2008.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

IBM make more than 1 000 000 000 dollars per year in licencing fees from patents. Its a huge income source for IBM.

IBM has for a long time been known as a big patent bully who forces companies to pay licenses för patents they probably do not need and/or which are invalid.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[mOdQuArK!]

I'm not quite sure what your position is - are you arguing for or against software-as-a-product?

No, see, I completely understand why a software company would want that model to succeed. I similarly understand why the media industry wants DRM.

Of course, those industries would want ways to make money by creating something once, then getting paid for it over and over. If the market weren't encumbered by IP laws, then they'd realize that business model was unworkable & try something else (like the service route for software development). Not sure about the media industry - I suspect they'd have to go back to supporting live performances, which might not be a bad thing culturally & socially speaking.

If you assume everyone acts greedily, there isn't a single person who wouldn't want special laws to let them make more money than they would otherwise be able to earn by simply providing goods or services.

Software has no such inherent limitation. If your company thrives on having people pay for software fixes, then face it - your software sucks.

You're not using your imagination. Even software has to evolve to adapt to changes in circumstance. You might be able to write a perfect, bulletproof program that satisfies every current customer need - but the customer WILL have new requirements, the platforms that the software needs to run on WILL change, the customer might have new projects (and would prefer to contract with you again if you did a good job the first time), etc. And although you sneer at "imperfect" programs, they WILL be created - and people will want them fixed. This, too, is a service professional's job.

Just like any other service professional, if you do a decent job, you WILL be able to get work. You don't need IP laws to make a living doing software development. And the more important the ability to process information is to our economy, the more work there will be.

So instead of buying software that works as you expect right out of the box, you get some raw materials for free, and then you have to spend time and money paying someone to make it work for you? Is that how it works?

No, for a typical business owner it would be more likely that they'd find something that already does pretty much what they want (if possible) and have it tweaked (by inhouse employees or contracting out) to exactly match their business requirements. That'd be a lot easier & cheaper if they didn't have to worry about violating IP laws. And the ability to customize their computing environment to exactly match their business requirements would probably be perceived as a competitive advantage.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[nacturation]

Don't most of the GPL projects out there keep the phrase "GPL 2.0 or any later version" in their licenses? So you can choose which GPL version to pick. What if GPL 4.0 were very BSD-like, would that mean people could choose to apply it instead of the 2.0 version?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[ClosedSource]

"That would be a disaster for IBM and any other GPL-relying company."

No. It would be a disaster for the "free" software movement. IBM would simply stop is PR-based "free" software support and continue with business as usual. The "free" software movement has nothing IBM needs.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[TheWormThatFlies]

How about fixing the patent system instead, and getting rid of the brain-dead software patent examiners who have no clue what's "obvious to someone in the field" or not?

Well, the problem is that while I'm sure many proponents of this scheme would like to do that instead, and get rid of the core problem, they can't. It is not in their power.

I would very much like to see copyright reduced to something reasonable, and the public domain restored to what it used to be. I can rant about how much I would like this to happen until I'm blue in the face, but I don't have the power to directly influence anyone who could make it happen.

In the meantime, copyleft licences are a way for me and people and like me to actually do something which makes a difference and at least reduce the problem, because they have created a body of information which is a sort of public domain, but which is protected from poaching by the same laws which are currently screwing over the actual public domain.

This new licence would give us a similar opportunity to actually do something to try to retaliate against DRM and software patents. It may not work as well, and it may have unfortunate repercussions, but saying that it's a bad idea because we should be looking at the root cause of the problem isn't a very good counter-argument. How are we supposed to do that? Write to politicians? Get elected to office? Stage a coup? The first option is ineffectual, and the other two require dedicated effort and a complete career change.

The problem with criticising bad laws is that it isn't enough to recognise that they're bad, or to come up with an ingenious hypothetical set of alternative laws which would be just great. In order to actually achieve a change, you need a plan for getting from here to there - and I have yet to hear a better plan for getting rid of software patents or DRM than encouraging the use of retaliatory licences.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[rtb61]

Nothing yet, as this is only a discussion about a pending draft that is going to go through an open public comment and review process. If you don't like it particpate in the process and if sufficent people agree with your changes they will likely be implemented. In this case the truth made for a rather boring story, so MSNBC jazed it up to suit themselves (go figure).

As for me open DRM on a voluntary basis, who cares, some will use it, some won't use it (I likely won't use it but that should be my choice either way).

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[salec]

Thus - you may charge a fee for sending the program to anyone else, but you can't stop them from distributing it for free to anyone else. Even worse, they can resell your software and give you nothing.

And that is exactly why, if your work is really innovative and valuable, you may and should put very high price on "transfer" of it, orders of magnitude higher then end-user proprietary software "licencing" price - your customer should think about it as an investment. If he or she alone cannot afford it, then let them find co-investing interested parties first. They'll get top-notch software and keep all their freedoms too. Now, if that doesn't call for a high price, then what does? And if, after paying all that for my copy, they still wish to give copies to someone or even everyone for free, thus in effect giving up on cashing in on their investment, they will have my deepest respect and applause (really, I am not beeing sarcastic).

Don't rely on someone giving you something for a thing that is already left your hands - you may have had issued a proprietary software and still majority of your users would not pay you a nickel - most of them would use "pirated" copies instead. "Piracy" works because number of copies "pirat" makes and sells times his/her profit largely tops price of single "regular" copy (s)he buys, by fat margin. With GPL understood and used well, you have a good reason to value your work what its worth is. Others will profit from your work giving you nothing, true, but this time you get to account for it when setting your price. Then, sell and forget! No bother, no mess.

This model can create entire new industry of production and distribution of digital content, on a range of levels and scales.

CmdrTaco, RTFA, you misquoted it

[Anonymous Coward]

the article talks about the losing the right to distribute, not about losing the right to use.

Big, big difference.

Details from the register

[file-exists-p]

In The Register, I read:

FSF Europe president, Georg Greve told us that while the FSF is considering some patent and DRM language for the next version of the GPL, "none of this is decided and that only the first draft will show what is really in there".

He was speaking to El Reg after an article on Reuters quoted him as saying that anyone who patented software would be prevented from using free software. Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:

"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software."

That makes even more sense to me.

no use restrictions in GPL 2

[pruss]

I thought one of the basic ideas behind the GPL was that unlike many commercial EULAs, it has no use restrictions whatsoever--it only governs copying and distribution. Abandoning this principle would be a major change. It would also require moving from the current model on which the legal force of the GPL lies in copyright law which prohibits unauthorized copying and distribution (beyond fair use, etc.) to a model that, like EULAs, is based on contract law (and has all of the dubious validity that some EULAs have). IANAL, though.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[mshurpik]

The difference between a "process" and a "computer-implemented process" is infinitely gray.

How so? It seems to me that a "process" involves physical phenomena and a "computer-implemented process" involves, for starters, a computer, running some kind of digital representation of something that may appear to correspond to reality, or may be totally imaginary. For example, a process is something like: take iron, add carbon, and get steel. It starts with physical objects and finishes with a new physical material.

A computer process is something like: take the number A, add X, and get B. Now, are you telling me that the quantity B, or the method of addition, are somehow patentable? If I do a lot of additions over and over again, thereby "obfuscating" the simplicity of the method, now is it patentable? The problem with software patents, is that anyone who has built a computer (that is, anyone with a C.S. bachelors) knows that all software methods are reducible to boolean logic, simple control structures, and, from that point, to assembly code and then binary. A computer is an adding machine, the input and output of all methods are simply numbers. What is a sufficient level of complexity to start patenting numbers?

I've read patents. Some patents are simply a long list of circular definitions, and do not deserve to be patents because they don't refer to anything real or unique. This is well down the road to abomination. Software is an arbitrary sequence of language instructions. Unless you can explain how to patent a dictionary, a newspaper, a magazine or a novel, I don't think even the phrase "software patent" holds enough weight to carry a discussion.

Your argument seems to be that since the phrase "software patent" makes certain people sleep easier at night, we should leave it alone. That's a fairly typical pro-business argument, the old "we're completely helpless unless you allow us to shatter common sense in pursuit of the profit motive." It's exactly the kind of argument used to erode the real rights of real engineers.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[dougmc]

Perhaps you should read and think about the news a little more critically before jumping to conclusions.

Thanks dad. I didn't consider that maybe everything I found on the Intraweb isn't completely accurate!

(And maybe you should read more carefully. I did discuss other options.)

Dumb FUD or just dumb. Trademarks, GPLv3 and SBDM

[mattr]

Just when things were going really well for the free software world, what with Microsoft starting to lather as governments ban Windows and SCO twirling down the drain, Linus goes out and hires a vicious spammer to supposedly protect his trademark, and now we have another dumb idea. What is it with open source people and this urge toward self-destruction? I mean, I always knew this was close to masochism but what is going on?

All these guys have to do is sit back and do nothing, or the absolute minimum. The creator of the GPL is not the main driving force anymore, it is the legions applying the GPL to their works, and the legions mandating installation of GPL software. Likewise, the Linux trademark is bizarre since it is basically a generic term already, aimed not at the kernel at all but at most everything to do with a Linux system. And the reason for trademark protection - to maintain quality and fight against abusers of the trademark - does not require the nastiness the project has so far produced.

All these guys have to do now is, shut up. Or be creative and think about something else. Making such a wildly different version of the GPL means it will stratify the world and now everybody will have to hunt down the liscense of every bit of GPL code they use to make sure they are not infecting themselves with a bad virus, when they thought they were swimming in a sea of good virus. And they will become LIABLE. And companies will forbid GPLv3 and it is likely some will forbid GPL at all since it is too hard to hunt down. This is yet another loaded gun the free software community has created, aimed at its head, put its finger on the trigger, and then said, "it's a done deal and you're dumb for saying anything against it." This is when the microscopic attention span of slashdot starts to feel scary. If you want to sue FUD mongers and fight them with trademarks, start with the guy thinking up all these viral weapons in his head, and the other idiot who published them. How much of our recent gains have been SHOT TO HELL by these major fuckups?

EXCELLENT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've posted about the need for this in various fora(forums?) such as /. (as anonymous coward), linuxquestions, 2cpu, mailing lists, and many other places where GPL and patent discussions come up.

Why should a company, individual, or any entity for that matter, looking to patent prior art as part of a get-rich-quick scheme, or patent "obvious" uses of technology (e.g., patenting a hyperlink to buy something. Uh, obvious use of hypertext, which has existed since the day of analogue computers), be allowed to use free software?

I would love to see the BSD license modified in this way, then Microsoft cannot hijack BSD components as it moves Windows over to a more *nix-like architecture post-Longhorn, and claim it as a new innovation.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

yes, state and corporate power are merged as you say, but it's hardly a move rightward. they want all the big government amenities and protections.

You're just illustrating your lack of understanding of the political spectrum.

It *is* a move rightward because it *is* using the power of the state to give power to the wealthy and corporate interests at the expense of individual liberty and society.
That, by *definition* is rightward.

i am a federalist, small government conservative. i would vote against gay marriage,

Now, this right here is absolutely illustrative of what I'm talking about. You have claimed to believe in two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
That is a contradiction. You absolutely can not believe in both at least not and expect to be treated as if you were rational.

If you actually believed in small government, just about the last thing you would ever support is a law whose only possible purpose is to marginalize a large segment of the population because they were born different than you.
Do you truly not see the fundamental incompatibility between those two viewpoints? How else are you going to enforce a law that is entirely oppressive and discriminatory in nature?
It demands big oppressive right-wing government.

but if my state voted for it, then it's the law. i accept that. neither the right nor the left would accept voting. both want the courts to impose the law. it's sad.

Now that is a patently ridiculous statement that shows your political ideas come mainly from Rush or Fox news or the like rather than any knowledge of the actual basis of our system.

Hate based legislation like you are promoting is unconstitutional. The courts aren't imposing shit. They are doing their job which is to restrain the legislative branch from making laws imposed by the many as a direct attack against the few. It's a sad fact of human nature that there are people like you who think it's ok for you to use the force of government to oppress innocent people. The framers of our country were well aware of it and they took steps to prevent it.
The people who gave you that ignorant little sound bite are also aware of it, and they don't like it becasue it is an inherently Liberal idea and it is supposed to prevent extremists of any ilk from pushing through their unconstitutional laws. It's a case of the system working and you don't like it bacause it is promoting equality which you have stated that you are firmly against.

real problem is is that we've cocooned ourselves into our little enclaves. think about the red/blue map. you could drive from coast to coast and never leave a red county. the red gets redder, the blue gets bluer. the blue "enclaves" and th red sprawl rarely come into contact. they see each other less frequently, interact less with them, and end of with a caricatured view of each other.

This is absolutely a huge problem. In fact, I'd say it's the fundamental cause of the issues I'm talking about.
The red states vote Republican, indicating their support of capitalism to the extreme, yet they live under a particularly rotten type of socialism. Their lifestyles are entirely depend upon the charity they receive from the blue states in the form of tax dollars well in excess of what they put into the pile.
Further, they demonize the lifestyles of those who pay their bills for them all the while contributing to the decline which they are helping by voting for the party which wholeheartedly promotes that decline.

Now as capitalism is slowly working its way into their secluded enclaves, they are beginning to see the flaws inherent in the system. They don't like it, but rather than looking into solutions that could address the issue they choose to be led in bleeting about the evil "Liberals" and so push for even more of what causes their problems in the first place.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Cyno]

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Just like one person's looter is another person's hurricane victim.

You mean like sveasoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

But obviously you can't take something that's licensed under the GPL and "remove offending portions" that you don't like, before releasing your modifications. That would undermine the whole idea.

You mean like www.sveasoft.com did? "We'll just take a GPL'd firmware from Linksys, that they got from a minimal linux distro and re-release it as BSD license cause then we can use it commercially! Oh, and then ask the FSF if doing something different is ok and pretend we asked about what we're actually doing"

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

It seems to me that a "process" involves physical phenomena and a "computer-implemented process" involves, for starters, a computer, running some kind of digital representation of something that may appear to correspond to reality, or may be totally imaginary.

You need to read more patents. Patent practitioners go for breadth: if the inventor has invented a process, the patent usually claims a "process," regardless of how it will be carried out. Check out this claim from U.S. Patent No. 4,405,829:

A method for establishing cryptographic communications comprising the step of: encoding a digital message word signal M to a ciphertext word signal C, where M corresponds to a number representative of a message and 0.ltoreq.M.ltoreq.n-1 where n is a composite number of the form n=p.multidot.q where p and q are prime numbers, and where C is a number representative of an encoded form of message word M, wherein said encoding step comprises the step of: transforming said message word signal M to said ciphertext word signal C whereby C.ident.M.sup.e (mod n) where e is a number relatively prime to (p-1).multidot.(q-1).

Do you see the word "computer" in there? No, it's just a process. It happens to be the process of RSA encryption and decryption, which, in virtually every instance, is carried out by a computer processor. But on the off-chance that you want to decrypt a message with a slide rule or an abacus, you would still have violated the patent (which is now expired.)

And don't try focusing on the mathematical nature of the process as a means of determining bad "software" vs. good "non-software" patents. You can easily embed this same process in a novel circuit, and patent that. So are you also opposed to patents for circuits?

The delineation gets even more gray when using high-level object-oriented programming. Such a "process" may be a control mechanism for an automobile assembly line, involving cars, paint, welding tools, etc. Does it matter if the process is a hardware controller, or if it's a purely sofware simulation? Should it?

Or, how about drug identification: should the process of finding a protein target for a cancer drug be patentably different if carried out in a test tube or a software simulation?

I've read patents. Some patents are simply a long list of circular definitions, and do not deserve to be patents because they don't refer to anything real or unique.

Sounds to me like you haven't studied patents enough to understand their style. Simple words like "means" and "comprising" and "for" have some special meanings that you wouldn't grasp from just reading patents. On the other hand, patents that are obfuscated - by intention or by incompetence - are not valid and not enforceable; the patentee has wasted its own time and money to get a worthless patent.

Unless you can explain how to patent a dictionary, a newspaper, a magazine or a novel...

You can't, under the "printed matter" doctrine. Computers are different: they don't just tell you how to do something; they can actually do it for you. Hence the distinction.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

I'm not quite sure what your position is - are you arguing for or against software-as-a-product?

I'm arguing for it. I believe in promoting the interests of customers over the interests of business. Moreover, I believe that businesses often work best when they also promote the interests of customers, especially compared with an alternative business model that costs customers more and gives them less.

For instance, I hate the idea of DRM - I hate it to its core. It's a movement to sell people music that's less useful than music on a CD, and probably for more money (additional hardware, re-purchases, etc.) I froth with irritation when companies pitch this inanity to customers as "trusted computing" or similar nonsense. It's terrible business - it alienates customers, and probably won't work - and I suspect that the RIAA will regret it in the long run.

I feel similarly about continuous-payment software models. Hope that's obvious in retrospect.

Of course, those industries would want ways to make money by creating something once, then getting paid for it over and over. If the market weren't encumbered by IP laws...

What in the world do IP laws have to do with rental business models? You're lashing the spectre of technology stagnation to your disfavor of software patents with little more than rhetoric and chewing gum.

Even software has to evolve to adapt to changes in circumstance.

A few software products, sure. I totally get why Symantec sells subscriptions to Norton Antivirus: it's expected to respond immediately to every new virus. Same thing with mapping software, since the maps need frequent updating. Those things make sense, and so their customers are grateful to pay for them.

But very little software fits that need. Look at the leading software apps - Windows, Office, Photoshop, file compression, email and instant messaging clients, web browsers, media players. I just want them to work, forever. The company is expected to patch product defects - not because I pay them to, but because their product shouldn't be defective. But I don't need updates; if I really want new features, I'll buy the next version.

You might be able to write a perfect, bulletproof program that satisfies every current customer need - but the customer WILL have new requirements, the platforms that the software needs to run on WILL change, the customer might have new projects (and would prefer to contract with you again if you did a good job the first time), etc.

Fine. So you go write a new version, and I'll think about buying it. If it's not worth it to me, I'll stick with the software that I bought and own. What's wrong with that model?

That'd be a lot easier & cheaper if they didn't have to worry about violating IP laws.

There you go again, with superfluous use of "IP laws" as some kind of talisman. And in this instance, you're completely wrong. What prevents companies from tweaking purchased? It's not IP law of any kind. It's the license agreement with the vendor - the private contract under which the software was sold. "IP laws" have nothing to do with it.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[mshurpik]

>So are you also opposed to patents for circuits?

Does the circuit produce a physical result or just a bunch of electrons?

>Does it matter if the process is a hardware controller, or if it's a purely sofware simulation? Should it?

Yes it totally matters.

>Or, how about drug identification: should the process of finding a
>protein target for a cancer drug be patentably different if carried
>out in a test tube or a software simulation?

I'm not terribly well-acquainted with biochemistry but I would have to assume yes, they are different.

>Sounds to me like you haven't studied patents enough to understand
>their style.

I've had this thrown at me before, and it's silly. No, I haven't studied the grammar of US patents, but I'm a computer programmer and patents read exactly like programs. In fact, this is my exact point, this is even your point, that a patent need only be a program, a self-contained logic structure, to be valid. What I see is that a bunch of hack programmers are trying to patent the world just by making definitions of things that already exist.

I believe patents are for inventions that must either have physical components or physical results. Are electrons physical? Look at it this way: Inventors come up with new results. The Bessemer process for steel created a new material, and the speed and ease of production was especially new.

The problem with your "processes" is that they just as easily point back to objects that are pre-existing, into a closed space of results. For example, how would you like it if I patented the process of living in your house? You would have to move out. The reason that's not logical is because your house is already yours. For that patent, I didn't invent anything, I was just clever enough to write it down before you did.

Electrons and numbers are part of this closed space. What if I patented addition? It is a process. Whether performed on a computer or on a slide rule, that cypher you listed produces no objects and no material results.

LIGHT has no MASS. Organization of light is not patentable. Patents can only exist in physical reality because it is only in reality that you can "invent" something "new." I find this completely straightforward yet people insist on conflating physical and mathematical processes as if patents were meant to be logical. They never were. They were always real, and I find it very interesting to debate this with computer people because some of us "get" that computers are fake and some of us don't.

    -Mike

What about inventors?

[misterk123]

Hmm this is very disturbing. I'm against silly software patents like the one described in the article, but not patents in general.

I'm an inventor. I've recently invented a new telephone queue system that allows callers to hang up, then call back without losing their place. It makes people really happy, it's genuinely novel, and there's no way I could commercialise/benefit from my invention without the protection of a patent (which has already been granted in the U.K.). One of the big telcos would just pinch it, I'm sure. Full details at http://www.orderlyq.com/ for those interested.

I'm also a coder, and a big fan of Open Source. For this reason I've implemented my invention using a variety of open-source tools, including Asterisk, Tomcat, Apache, PHP, Linux and PostgreSQL (though it could equally well be implemented as a hardware device). I'm strongly committed to the Open Source movement - and to give something back to the community, I've released the telephony application server I wrote to facilitate implementation of my invention as Open Source. I could probably have sold it - lots of developers are using it, but I really wanted to give something back.

Does this mean inventors like me are going to be penalised by the new GPL, just because I've chosen to implement my invention with Open Source tools?

How am I supposed to protect myself and my company, and get a return on the investment I have made, without a patent?

Why shouldn't inventors be able to use Open Source tools to implement their invention? Surely this is against the spirit of Free Software, where usage is supposed to be unrestricted? Wouldn't this mean that GPL'd software is no longer Free?

Surely what's needed here are more stringent requirements for grant by the US patent office (like we have here in the U.K.), not blanket retaliation from the FSF...

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jellomizer]

Well not always forcing but putting a lot of extra pressure. For example RMS pressured Open Office to get rid of a lot of Open Source Code because it was written in Java. Or the GNU community deciding to boycott your product just because you did some business with SCO.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Yes it totally matters.

Then you have a big problem. In fact, it's intractible.

Let's say you're the USPTO, and someone applies for a patent for a new process of drug identification. It involves finding proteins that inhibit a target protein and stop cancer. Presuming it's novel and nonobvious, do you allow it?

Now here's the crux of the problem: The patent validity and enforceability have nothing to do with how the applicant intends to carry out the process. Maybe he'll carry it out in a test tube, or maybe as a simulation. Maybe his competitors will carry it out in a test tube, or as a simulation. What matters is whether someone is performing the process, which is the invention.

I've had this thrown at me before, and it's silly. No, I haven't studied the grammar of US patents, but I'm a computer programmer and patents read exactly like programs.

What? Really? I've never seen a program that reads like this:

"What is claimed is: A medical diagnostic x-ray system, comprising: an x-ray generating device operative to produce medical diagnostic x-rays and thermal energy; a hydrogenated polyaromatic fluid operative to circulate about said device to absorb at least a portion of said thermal energy and electrically insulate said device, said fluid comprising a hydrogenated compound that upon exposure to said x-rays forms an unsaturated hydrocarbon and hydrogen atoms; and an effective amount of a hydrogenation catalyst for interaction with said fluid, said catalyst reactable with said hydrogen atoms and said unsaturated hydrocarbon to recombine said hydrogen atoms with said unsaturated hydrocarbon."

Seriously, patents and code couldn't be more different. A program contains the actual instructions, in precise detail and chronological order, for carrying out an algorithm. A patent broadly describes an invention, focusing on the key pieces/advantages and omitting much detail.

Maybe an analogy would work for you -

Computer code : Patent :: Recipe : Photograph of Food

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[h4rm0ny]

The simple fact of the matter is that technology, the availability of it, and the education necessary to use it has reached the point where it is no longer the preserve of big companies with heavy R&D budgets. All the big companies are doing with their patent efforts are trying to force people to depend on them for things they can produce themself.

All this talk of cars is meaningless and misleading. If a few hundred engineers get together to build one, then only one of them can drive away, but a few hundred get together and write an OS, or a web-browser, and everyone gets a copy.

So what if we have reached the stage where people can produce sophisticated software as a pasttime? The choice is for us to reach that stage at some point or never to reach it. If the only way we can deal with that is legislation to prevent it, then I guess that's about as far as mankind can go.

And remember that every bit of money saved through Open Source has to resurface somewhere else. Maybe you'll be one of the people hired with that money on something else, or maybe you'll be the shop-owner who sells products to people spending that saved money, or maybe, just maybe, I'll finally see mankind shift to a three day working week at last.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

The simple fact of the matter is that technology, the availability of it, and the education necessary to use it has reached the point where it is no longer the preserve of big companies with heavy R&D budgets.

What do you mean, "no longer?" I remember the software market of 10 or 20 years ago as very heavily populated by a whole lot of small companies. Even Microsoft was a niche player in the OS market, and just starting to branch into applications. If you equate software patents with big companies, then you should be happy to see these trends heading in the same direction.

All the big companies are doing with their patent efforts are trying to force people to depend on them for things they can produce themself.

Show me an instance where a patent was asserted against a person. Go ahead - I'll wait.

Patents are business tools that companies use against each other. What you do for your own purposes with a copy of Visual Studio is largely irrelevant to patentees, unless you turn the result into some kind of product. Why would they waste their time and money stopping you from doing something in private that doesn't impact their business?

All this talk of cars is meaningless and misleading. If a few hundred engineers get together to build one, then only one of them can drive away, but a few hundred get together and write an OS, or a web-browser, and everyone gets a copy.

The purpose of my analogy had nothing to do with the physicality of the auto vs. the intangibility of the software. That is irrelevant.

My point was that you can choose between two product models. One product costs more up front, but does everything you might want to do with it (within reason.) The other is free, but every time you want to adapt it to a new use, you have to pay someone to customize it for you. I prefer the former model; the ongoing need for more service is a debilitating hassle.

So what if we have reached the stage where people can produce sophisticated software as a pasttime?

Hey, I do that now. We're already there. And guess what - I can do that as much as I want, for my own purposes, without getting sued for patent infringement.

- David Stein

Stop programming, start reading books !!!

[fizteh89]

>Are electrons physical?

YES, they are, IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!

As well as protons, neutrons, mesons, muons, positrons, quarks etc.

>Electrons and numbers are part of this closed space.
>LIGHT has no MASS. Organization of light is not patentable.

Einstein rests ...
Why don't you just shut up, for God's sake ?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[h4rm0ny]

What do you mean, "no longer?" I remember the software market of 10 or 20 years ago as very heavily populated by a whole lot of small companies.

Small is a relative term - we have now got to the level where software is written by individuals - different to what you are talking about and that makes a difference because the motivation need no longer be profit, and because the only restriction on reproducing software is the requirement to pay the producer, then non-profit becomes pervasive.

By the way, software patents in the US only became generally accepted in the mid-eighties. The market has changed greately since the times you are talking about. There still are many, many small software companies, but they rely on copyright. The big players have the real patent arsenals.

Show me an instance where a patent was asserted against a person. Go ahead - I'll wait.

I said people, as in everyone. This includes small companies which are, of course, the first thing someone forms when they have a piece of software they want to sell. However, if nothing is done to head it off, we will see patent attacks on Linux soon, as one example of patent attacks on open-source software. There is general confusion between copyright and patents in this thread. As I have made very clear, I am talking about patents.
What you do for your own purposes with a copy of Visual Studio is largely irrelevant to patentees, unless you turn the result into some kind of product.

They're the people I've been talking about - the ones who release their code. That was clear. You can say the secret, isolationist coder is safe if you like - doesn't make it fair that those who work together are not.

The purpose of my analogy had nothing to do with the physicality of the auto vs. the intangibility of the software. That is irrelevant.

Hardly - the reproducibility of software is key to the fact that it can be created by people for themselves. This is because software is complex and needs group effort. The correct analogy for software is knowledge - it can be shared without loss to the sharer and it can be expanded on without starting from scratch. The only way your windscreen analogy would be accurate would be for you to have developed it without building on any previous technologies - a tall order. If you want sole ownership of your software, then do it without building on anyone elses.

My point was that you can choose between two product models. One product costs more up front, but does everything you might want to do with it (within reason.) The other is free, but every time you want to adapt it to a new use, you have to pay someone to customize it for you.

This bears no resemblence to the software world I know. All the commercial projects I have worked on continued to release updates. Far more than free software, the commercial model depends on continuing to sell newer versions of their software, or else periodic licencing fees, or else both. Any other scenario and you'll kill your income very quickly as a business.

As to the cusomising - my whole point is that we have now reached the point where people do it themselves. If the only reason not to, is a legal penalty, then the sole effect of the law is to enforce a dependence on the "owners" of the software.

Commercial software cannot compete with free software of equal or better quality. We have now reached the stage where people can manage this quality themselves. Copyright enables you to write and sell your software as you want. Patents enable you to stop someone else trying to improve on it. The latter is bad for humanity.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

Small is a relative term - we have now got to the level where software is written by individuals...
I said people, as in everyone.

You're trying to have it both ways. You're stating that patents are a threat to an individual because they are a threat to a group of people working for a company. Then, you argue that patents should not be a threat to companies, because they can be a single individual working on his own.

It's pretty simple:

• Software created for private use, either by an individual or by a company, is effectively untouchable by patents.
• Software created as a product and sold for profit is, and should be, touchable by patents from other inventors.

You can argue these issues individually, but you're trying to conflate them. You're combining the drama of the poor individual coder oppressed by patents with the visibility of a company offering a commercial product. Pick one.

However, if nothing is done to head it off, we will see patent attacks on Linux soon, as one example of patent attacks on open-source software.

Ah, the looming spectre of the Linux patent assault. Why do you suppose this hasn't occurred yet, despite chicken-little prophesies by minor Linux advocates for at least five years? Why does Linus Torvalds not seem worried?

Answer: It would be a terrible business decision. IBM needs Linux as a free design platform. Microsoft needs Linux to dodge accusations of monopolization, and attacking it would damage the its reputation (which it's striving to salvage.) In short, no one who owns such an arsenal can derive a business benefit by attacking Linux.

You've got to face facts here. Patents are not weapons, threats, or land grabs. They are business tools. Businesses acquire and use them solely for business reasons. Any outcry over perceived use in a non-business sense is out of sync with reality.

Hardly - the reproducibility of software is key to the fact that it can be created by people for themselves.

You continue to miss the point of the analogy. The point is freedom to expand into new uses. This has nothing to do with physicality, or reproducibility. You're trying to avoid the analogy on an unrelated basis.

(And you're obviously not reading closely at all; I've made no reference to the windshield analogy raised elsewhere in these post comments. If you're not willing to read before responding, then I'm going to stop responding to you.)

This bears no resemblence to the software world I know. All the commercial projects I have worked on continued to release updates. Far more than free software, the commercial model depends on continuing to sell newer versions of their software, or else periodic licencing fees, or else both.

What are you talking about?

What software are you buying that requires mandatory upgrades or periodic licenses? Aside from the two niches I mentioned before - antivirus software and mapping software - not a single software product I own requires paid-for upgrades. Almost all of them offer patches for quite some time to fix bugs, and even add new features, for free. And I own a lot of software.

As to the cusomising - my whole point is that we have now reached the point where people do it themselves.

That would be a disaster for the many free software companies. Since they can make very little money on the software product under the GPL, the service aspect is their primary source of income. If we've reached the point where users can customize their own software, then you can kiss many of the free Linux distros goodbye - their business models are in tatters.

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

And that is exactly why, if your work is really innovative and valuable, you may and should put very high price on "transfer" of it, orders of magnitude higher then end-user proprietary software "licencing" price - your customer should think about it as an investment.

Let me tell you a story about a company called Seattle Computer Products.

In 1980, Seattle Computer Products spent some time creating a really neat disk management package called QDOS. They then operated on exactly the model you just suggested. They offered the software for sale at $50,000 apiece, with the free right to sublicense it.

Guess who bought it? A little upstart called Microsoft. Microsoft then sublicensed it exactly once, to IBM, as a new product called MS-DOS - but the sublicense reserved royalties for Microsoft.

Where are Microsoft and IBM today? And where is Seattle Computer Products?

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

I'd offer a response but it appears you've been trolling kos for cut-n-paste quotes. It's a fairy tale world. You apparently know little of political science, economics, or history. But you try hard.

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[aCapitalist]

Typical of a neocommie - supporting terrorists and looters.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[InvalidError]

BSD is almost a free-for-all. You can take the code base and build some proprietary closed-source software around it. This is exactly what the GPL is opposing... the GPL even goes so far as to forbid static linking and a bunch of other things. It is highly unlikely that any GPL revision will ever stray this far from GPL1's spirit.

New GPL versions usually add more restrictions and define special cases.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[killjoe]

"Well not always forcing but putting a lot of extra pressure. For example RMS pressured Open Office to get rid of a lot of Open Source Code because it was written in Java."

If by putting pressure you mean expressing their opinion then yes. I certainly don't recall RMS torturing people, holding their kids hostage, calling people communists or cancerous or anti american do you? All he did was to publicly state his opinon. Why do you have problem with that?

"Or the GNU community deciding to boycott your product just because you did some business with SCO."

It's called freedom. Deal with it. People have a right to spend their money any way they want. If I don't want to give my money or use a product that's my choice. Why do you have a problem with that?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[salec]

No, it is not the model I suggested. Or if it was their idea, there was a fault in it: This could only happen because business model was based on BSD-type licence or on totally you-may-licence-it-whatever-you-like deal. But I propose strictly GPL and copying here, not sublicencing.

You found an example from actual history I was searching for, a good example why GPL is better for business then BSDL, thank You!

-------

Besides (and even further OT), it is now obvious that Seattle Computer Products didn't know true value of their product or, more likely, the price was fair (competitive) for the software (probably they were the lowest bidder out of several similar companies with similar products and licencing scheme), but they lacked the great business idea based on it, or means to pull it off, or maybe even desire to be more of a salesmen, less of a programmer. We see today that there is a lot of people who will program even just for the fun of it and if they can earn their living doing so too, then woohoo great! SCP probably wasn't so extreme in such attitude, but most technical people have certain repulsive feelings about "suits".

Their own percieved "mission" was obviously to sell what they wrote to earn cash to live while writing some more, not to conquer the world (nice wordplay in the product name, though - tells a lot about their mindset - pride in quality and merit, so kudos to them!).

They took their money NOW (then), probably believing that they've got rich quick, and left to the buyer to make something out of it, if anything.

The value we now see from today's historical perspective in their product was added by Microsoft and IBM thru marketing and raw power of "300-pound-gorilla-ness" ("We make the standards"). The IBM could push up and turn into golden success whatever other OS was in that place.

Even Microsoft's own success story is impossible today, when no big company is so gallant to any "little helper" as IBM was to Microsoft then. It was once in a lifetime, no, once in known history (Spanish conquistadors in Latin America excluded) chance. Today, some new young-Microsoft-like startup would "lose" worse then Seattle Computer Products did (well, they didn't even lose, not that time, not in comparison to their competitors, but the whole industry of small computers' OS's fell together before IBM PC / MS-DOS soon after).

Mutual Termination for Patent Action

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

"Mutual termination for patent action" is actually the nominal reason FSF condemned OSI's Academic Free License:

Another incompatibility [with the Academic Free License] comes from its "Mutual termination for Patent Action" clause. Putting aside the difficult question of whether this sort of clause is a good idea or a bad one, it is incompatible with the GPL.

rendering this latest patent-retaliation more bizarre.

Re: Mod parent +5 informative!

[compro01]

just pointing out that it wouldn't be that hard to just slip in a tax like that to pay for stuff as the guy suggests. add maybe $15 and i would place some decent money that 90% of people would never notice it if it was called something non-descritive, but enough to satisfy most people's curiosity on what it is, like "copyright protection surcharge". make something sound offical and people leave it alone for the most part (just like the idea that you can go almost anywhere by carrying a clipboard and looking serious)

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Rakarra]

You posted what I was about to say. I just love the irony of GPL becoming less free in order to encourage a behavior. The very idea is 180 out from what free software is fundamentally about.

I disagree.. the Free Software movement has always been about how the making and use of closed commercial software is immoral. This is just another step along that path.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read the CURRENT GPL. What you are talking about is ALREADY addressed there. The rule, in lay terms, is that if you implement a patent in GPL'd code, then you implicitly license that patent to any users of the GPL'd code - this is the part about imposing no restrictions beyond the GPL itself on the use of GPL'd code.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

The rule, in lay terms, is that if you implement a patent in GPL'd code, then you implicitly license that patent to any users of the GPL'd code...

If it's implicit, then why are you asking me to read the license?

Snarky comment aside:

You are essentially suggesting that if
(a) Microsoft releases a product derived from GPLed code, and
(b) the derivative product embodies a patentable software invention, and
(c) Microsoft chooses to patent that invention,
...then the entire world has the right to use that patent.

I don't believe that the GPL reads that way. Not implicitly, and absolutely not explicitly.

Here's how it really works. The novel portion of the GPL pertains to flow-down rights. If you take a GPLed product, improve it, and pass it along, the users of that derivative product have certain rights. I think what you're interpreting as "implicit" is that those rights may supersede any patents held by the creator of the derivative product - which is different.

Even if we accept this supersessory flow-down right as "implicit," it's not what's happening in the Microsoft/Eidos scenario I suggested. Eidos doesn't derive superseding rights from Microsoft's derivative product - because Eidos isn't using Microsoft's derivative product at all. Instead, it has developed a product that embodies an invention also embodied by a product patented by Microsoft that, incidentally, was developed under the GPL. That's a completely different situation.

(Aside from that, the discovery issue still remains extremely problematic. I shouldn't need to elaborate on that.)

- David Stein

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Uber Banker]

Your round-up does as much justice as possible to that seemingly thoughtless tirade.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

But I propose strictly GPL and copying here, not sublicencing.

Huh? Sublicensing is the whole point of the GPL.

Look -

Person A originally creates some code and released it under the GPL.
Person B takes the code, improves it, and passes it along.
Person C downloads the modified code from person B.

In this case, the GPL requires B to grant certain rights to C. C receives rights from B, flowing down through the license between A and B. That's what we call a sublicense.

Now, let me explain why your suggestion matches the Seattle Computing scenario. Obviously, A = Seattle Computing; B = Microsoft; C = IBM.

The GPL permits A to give a copy to B, and A may charge B for the cost of delivering the original program. However, A may not forbid B from redistributing the code, in original or unmodified form, or from charging for that distribution.

You think this scenario is fine. You recommended changing it only by having A charge a very large sum for the one-time transfer. That is exactly what Seattle Computing and Microsoft did. Microsoft, having some actual business sense, redistributed the modified version on very different terms. The profound results naturally followed.

- David Stein

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[Cyno]

You should know, had you read about McCarthyism, that stereotyping everything they disagree with under labels like "terrorist" and "looter", reinforced by groupthink, brings them to the brink of becoming Nazis.

I assume you don't support the looters and terrorists.

But would you reevaluate your position if you watched a starving family loot an abandoned 7-11 for food and water for their child?

Would you support a terrorist if they were your neighbor fighting for your freedom from an oppressive government?

Or would you just call them all neocommies and throw your poop at them?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[salec]

Microsoft, having some actual business sense, redistributed the modified version on very different terms.

IMO that was the key point. GPL doesn't allow that. Once GPL, always GPL. In GPL landscape, anyone with enaugh workpower can "embrace and extend" your original work, but they cannot escape "The revenge: Return Of The Original Author" or "Attack of a Newcomer" sequel. The "snatchers" get only as far as putting themself in a same position as "victim". Every added advantage in one branch of the fork will presto migrate to other in next release. But sure, more innovative side will always be one step ahead.

Back to our ABCs,

The GPL permits A to give a copy to B, and A may charge B for the cost of delivering the original program. However, A may not forbid B from redistributing the code, in original or un^H^Hmodified form, or from charging for that distribution.

However, GPL says B too may not forbid A (or C, D, ...) from doing the same thing vice versa and competing with B for deal with C (or D, or E, ...).

Re:Stallman's feeble attempts at politics will fai

[aCapitalist]

If you're still checking out the replies send me an email at plisken63134@yahoo.com. I think you're a nutcase, but for some reason I think you're salvagable.

By the way, I'm a real liberal - not a fucking republican.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

I'd offer a response but it appears you've been trolling kos for cut-n-paste quotes.

Not at all. I don't know what "kos" is, nor did I cut and paste from anywhere.

It's a fairy tale world. You apparently know little of political science, economics, or history.

In fact all I did was point out the fairy tale delusions under which you are suffering.
I know quite a bit about political science and history.
That is probably why you are unable to actually address any of my points. You have a world view which is fundamentally incompatible with reality.

But you try hard.

You merely repeat ridiculous nonsense you've been told by the media without making any attempt to find a way to make it actually fit in with reality. When you are confronted with the inherent contradictions of your position, you are completely unable to back it up because it is indefensible.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

Let me point out one obvious thing you don't seem to grab. A state has the authority to regulate who it grants contracts to, including the mariage contract. Regulation it is not hateful, especially when it reflects the will of the people. And yes, gay people can marry. There is no "sexuality test" prior to entering the marriage contract. Gay people can marry, they must marry people of the oposite gender. (Will is married to Grace by the way, unless you don't watch the show. I do. It is quite funny.) Now, it might be inconsistent you say for a gay man to marry a woman. It might be, but it does happen. So, there is no discrimination. This is wholly separate from miscogeny laws.

If you're concerned that person A can't leave property to person B, I agree. Property rights have been emasculated. How do youKelo? Marriage, however, is not a civil right. But I've spent too much time already.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[b17bmbr]

crap, damn html. It should read How do you feel about Kelo?

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[Darby]

Let me point out one obvious thing you don't seem to grab. A state has the authority to regulate who it grants contracts to, including the mariage contract.

I have no problems grasping that.

Regulation it is not hateful, especially when it reflects the will of the people.

That, however, is where you leave reality for your fantasy world. Regulation is hateful if it is done solely for hateful purposes as in this case.

Come up with any sane reason that it's any of your business who marries who other than hatred. You can't do it.
Nobody who has jumped in on htis issue in the media has even attempted to provide any sane reason. They just spout nonsense like "saving the sanctity of marriage" without even providing any potential mechanism by which it could possible do that.

Add in the fact that "sanctity" isn't anything elected representatives should concern themselves with. Hell, it's people like you that caused them to add the seperation of church and state to the constitution.

If people were trying to make your church marry gay people that would be a problem, and your business.

As long as it's only the civil institution that's under discussion, then it's neither a problem, nor any of your business.