Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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.
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.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Later IBM. It was good while it lasted.
-Peter
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?
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.
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
"Free as in speech -- as long as you're saying what we want you to say". No way is this going to work.
Have you read my blog lately?
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.
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...
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?!?
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
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.
This is going to lead to an anti-GPL revolt. I know I'm considering it right now.
Finding God in a Dog
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.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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
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.
FC Closer
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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?
Agile Artisans
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.
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?
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
"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.
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.
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.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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.
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.
to
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.
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.
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
BSD license. Works well for OpenSSH.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
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:
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.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
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.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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:
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
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
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.
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.
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?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
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.
It is truly sad that most posters on /. are unable to do a basic search to fact check.
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.
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.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."