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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.