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.
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).
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.
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 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?
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.