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 wonder how this will effect Linus and his sizable patent portfolio.
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.
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?
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.
Remember, there are always alternative licenses for those that have patents. The GPL is not the end all be all (or whatever.)
What are the odds that some idiot will name his mutex ether-rot-mutex!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...:)
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
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.
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:
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.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
"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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
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?
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
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...
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.
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?
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.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
"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.
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
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.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
In other words, remove all references of the GPL from the GPL, as well as the annoying crap.
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.
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.