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

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: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.

/., 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.

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.

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: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.

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...

not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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...

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: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: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.

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..

"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.

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? 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.

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

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:RMS + shotgun

[Anonymous Coward]

The linux kernel explicitly says that the 'or any newer version' isn't allowed in this instance.

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