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.""

Comments

Taxation?

[nokilli]

From the article:

"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the kind of freedom being espoused here necessitate doing away with WiFi? I mean, how can you tax the connection if it's available to anyone, anonymously, at any time?

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.

Re:Taxation?

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

IBM

[pete-classic]

Later IBM. It was good while it lasted.

-Peter

Read the article, not the headline...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

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.

Re:Read the article, not the headline...

[nietsch]

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.

/., the foxnews of tech reporting

[Knome_fan]

No, the GPL3 will not have these provision?

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/ 2005q3/000116.html

and here:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3
is the mailing list, in case you want to participate in the discussion.

Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth

[LocalH]

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.

It depends on the specifics

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jarich]

All software should be FREE!

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?

Feedback

[Knome_fan]

In fact, the feedback process started today:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3

Here's the announcement:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q3/000116.html

Boy, am I glad that /. did not report on this trivial news, but instead on this well researched msnbc artile...

MSNBC article is obsolete, misquotes the FSF

[FlorianMueller]

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

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[jdhutchins]

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).

Re:A bold one

[LurkerXXX]

Far more important, doesn't IBM have software patents? Making Linux unusable by it's largest corporate sponsor is kinda... stupid.

Misquotes Managed -- see The Register

[alanQuatermain]

The Register had a story on this earlier in the day, complete with a clarification from FSF Europe president Georg Greve:

Reuters quoted him as saying that anyone who patented software would be prevented from using free software. Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:

"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."

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

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[tambo]

This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license.

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:

• It's really difficult to characterize "software patents." Some patents clearly claim a computer-implemented algorithm; most don't (in part, because the USPTO was rejecting such claimed inventions out of hand as "nonstatutory" until about 1998.) The difference between a "process" and a "computer-implemented process" is infinitely gray.
• Virtually every large software company has patents on software. The world's largest software patentee, by far, is IBM - a strong Linux advocate. Patents are acquired for a variety of reasons, including defensive purposes. The critical issue isn't whether or not a company patents software, but what it does with those software patents. Simply punishing all "software patentees" is an untenable oversimplification.
• I recognize that the Slashdot view of software patents is that Microsoft wants them in order to protect its fat, bloated monopoly. That's not untrue. But another beneficiary of software patents - arguably the most important one - is the small tech startup. And since cash-starved startups are more likely to use GPLed software than established firms, this penalty clause disproportionately impacts startups. In effect, this would discourage innovation and promote tech stagnation.
• This penalty clause would be a huge blow to the free software movement. Remember when BillG began touting the GPL as a "virus" that threatened to eviscerate companies' IP? This would lend much credence to that argument, and would send tech companies running away in droves.

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

Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio

[dougmc]

All software should be FREE!

So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.

yea right kiddie, you are probably just another of those free software users who has never spent sleepless night behind a computer trying to make a living from it.

I suspect you missed the irony in the post you were referring to. Assuming that this is correct, I'll explain it to you :

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.

Georg Greve of FSFE has posted a clarification:

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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