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
I wonder how this will effect Linus and his sizable patent portfolio.
"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.
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.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
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.
This is going to lead to an anti-GPL revolt. I know I'm considering it right now.
Finding God in a Dog
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
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
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.
No, the GPL3 will not have these provision?
/ 2005q3/000116.html
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
and here:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3
is the mailing list, in case you want to participate in the discussion.
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
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?
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
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.
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?
In fact, the feedback process started today:
/ 2005q3/000116.html
/. did not report on this trivial news, but instead on this well researched msnbc artile...
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3
Here's the announcement:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release
Boy, am I glad that
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
"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.
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).
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.
Stop being such an elitist prick... the slashdot, hell the internet in general, should not discriminate against schizophrenics. :)
Open Source Java DAO Generator
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.
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.
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!
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!
Naw, by espousing a tax it is communist nerdism.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
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.
The Register had a story on this earlier in the day, complete with a clarification from FSF Europe president Georg Greve:
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
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.
1. I.ll clean up
2. I.ll get a job
3. I.ll prove my worth to my employer
4. I.ll work my way up to CEO
5. I.ll make lots of money so I can retire and fish all day.
No, wait!! I already fish all day! Grandpa was no dummy!
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!
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! --
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...
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.
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.
I could have sworn I typed LinuS...
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?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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
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
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.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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.
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.
I'm teminally incoherent
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."
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
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.
> I work for a startup.
I'm interested in hearing more.
> We have a number of patents pending,
> most of which we filed for three years ago,
> before we announced details of the product
> and offered it for sale.
> (This is, of course, a requirement of law.)
As you surely know, patent aplications are published after 18 months. At this point it is possible to claim quasi-ownership of the invention. To quote Wikipedia: "The marking [patent pending] serves to notify potential infringers who would copy the invention that they may be liable for damages once a patent is issued." I believe this should successfully deter the competition to the same extent as a regular patent.
> Companies don't start up, swamp the world with their product,
> IPO and make everyone billionaires in a couple of months.
> You're still stuck in Internet bubble fantasy land.
> 3-5 years is not an unreasonable time just to get a company
> going, much less actually benefit from the first few years of hard work.
It is my opinion that if it takes as much as 3 years for a company to come up
with a product, it's doing something wrong. 3 years is almost a whole era in IT terms
(almost as long as the span between Windows releases )
I suggest that you propose a software patent duration that would be satisfactory.
I didn't come up with the 3-5 years out of nowhere. It's part of Bezos' proposal, which I quote below.
------
1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of patents.
2. That business method and software patents should have a much shorter lifespan than the current 17 years -- I would propose 3 to 5 years. This isn't like drug companies, which need longpatent windows because of clinical testing, or like complicated physical processes, where you might have to tool up and build factories. Especially in the age of the Internet, a good software innovation can catch a lot of wind in 3 or 5 years.
[...]
If done right -- and it could take 2 years or more -- we'll end up with a patent system that produces fewer patents (fewer people will bother to apply for 3 or 5 year patents, and fewerpatents means less work for the overworked Patent and Trademark Office), fewer bad patents (because of the pre-issuance comment period), and even the good patents won't last longer than is necessary to give the innovator a reasonable return (at Internet speed, you don't need 17 years). Bottom line: fewer patents, of higher average quality, with shorter lifetimes.
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!