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
I wonder how this will effect Linus and his sizable patent portfolio.
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?
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 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
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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?
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 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.
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!
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.
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.