RMS Previews GPL3 Terms

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview, ESR shocked a lot of people when he said, 'We don't need the GPL anymore.' Federico Biancuzzi contacted RMS, founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU system, to talk about the past, the present, and the future of the GNU GPL. Among other things, they discussed the new clauses of the upcoming GPL version 3."

Comments

It also appers to mandate s/w features

[myc_lykaon]

From TFA:

What do you mean?

If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program.

Isn't it a slippery road to go down when the license mandates a feature-set? It seems to make a mockery of the 'free to modify' mantra. In fact it seems to be 'not free' in that sense.

The freedom to confuse

[teslatug]

Check out the following quotes:

Maybe you could talk about the common question that people have: a project under GPL that receives a patch under GPL 3. What happens?

If the project's current code permits use under "GPL version 2 or later," they can integrate that patch. However, the files where they have merged in the patch will have to say "GPL version 3 or later."

They also have the option of not using that patch, or asking the contributor to give permission for its use under "GPL version 2 or later."

If I take a patch under GPL 3 and merge it with a project under "GPL 2 or later," should I write that the new license for the whole project is GPL 3?

The merged program as a whole can only be used under GPL 3. However, the files you did not change could still carry the license of "GPL 2 or later." You could change them or not, as you wish.

This new version, and later ones will confuse, fragment, and even make illegal many contributions and/or projects in the future. I think this will prove to be a weak link in Free Software as people try to mix GPL2 with GPL3 projects, and make a mess of things. Whatever benefits there are of GPL v3, they will be overshadowed by this mess it will create.

Re:The freedom to confuse

[RickHunter]

Nope. Note that this only applies if the patch explicitly says "GPL v3". The normal case is for contributions to be under the same license as the original codebase - in this hypothetical case, GPL v2. Someone submitting code licensed under GPLv3 to a GPLv2 project would be just as unlikely as someone submitting GPL'd code to a BSDL project, or vice-versa.

It's 2005, not 1985.

[SpaghettiPattern]

It's 2005, not 1985. We've learned a lot in the last 20 years.
Yeah we learned we need it more than ever before. Just imagine the SCO history without the GPL.

If you rigorously cling on to values (like GPL and free speech) people think you're a zealot. Until the same people realize they themselves were idiots. GPL is what got Linux this far -and not it's technical superiority over whatever- and it remains needed to prevent doctor evils screwing people over.

There's also the freedom to refrain from using the GPL and stop whining.

Re:Recognizing the need for the GPL...

[bersl2]

Try again.

Q: If the author of GPL says "copyright infringement is not necessarily wrong," some people could take code covered by GPL and claim that violating GPL terms is "not necessarily wrong."

A: I've addressed that point in the statement that inspired your question.

The GPL gets its legal force from copyright law, but that is not a source of moral authority, so none can come from there. Why then is it wrong to violate the GPL? Because that tramples other people's freedom or puts it at risk.

No

[swillden]

Recognizing the need for the GPL acknowledges the need for copyrights and/or IP laws. RMS is finally being consistent.

RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom. He views the GPL as necessary because the bad thing exists, and has always described the GPL as a form of legal judo, fighting the enemy with his own strength.

Re:No

[Dogtanian]

RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom.

I realise the view is RMS's, and not necessarily yours. However, in a country where everything is permitted, except where it is explicitly prohibited, doesn't every law "restrict freedom" in some manner?

WTF? GNU was always political!

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU was always about the 'Free Software' ideal, NOT Open Source... get it right!

Re:Services

[mark-t]

As I've remarked elsewhere, this is not legally enforceable.

Copyright only governs COPIES, not the services provided by those copies. If I am not distributing actual copies of the software (even if I may be distributing the service it provides), then copyright doesn't have any legal bearing, and the copyright holder can't legally force me to stop providing the service, even if I'm doing something he doesn't like (he could if I were to ever try to distribute the software as well, however). He is free, however, to politely *ASK* that I comply with his wishes, but it still has no legal weight.

ESR is wrong; per the usual

[I_redwolf]

The GPL is an anchor of freedom. It has nothing to do with technical merits of ones software. It has everything to do with making software freely available and open in communal fashion. I'd like to think of the GPL as a digital library of function; with protection for not only the developer but the user. Similar to fountains of knowledge that have existed through out history allowing human-kind to prosper. It should be noted that all communes and libraries of the past that operated as a hub of knowledge have been almost entirely destroyed with few exceptions. I find it hard how one would do this with the digital medium but moving along.

ESR seemingly doesn't understand that if it was simply about technical merit and time. In another 20 years we'll look back and it'll be a different story. Isn't history one of ESR's strong points? Here is another reason why ESR can't be coined as a forefront in opensource or what we all deem to be some form of movement. His views are totally not inline with freedom and freedom is what this is about. You release under GPL as a form of solidarity? How about in the future you refrain from releasing under the GPL and release under the license that you think is best. Solidarity and cowardness go hand in hand when you're in the minority.

RMS on the other hand needs to learn that one can't force freedom. You can only protect it and the primary goal should be protection for the user and developer. The external parties should not matter beyond that. If they benefit in fashion from the GPL then one should not prevent that. This doesn't mean that the GPL should never change; I have faith that RMS will learn better to adapt the GPL to current environments as well as forseeing the road ahead.

None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner. As much as people dislike RMS and fight and rally against him. He never sidelines and he never stands in solidarity with a position he disagrees with. He stands firmly in his belief for freedom and provided the framework on which I make my living, how I learned to make my living and how I even enjoy myself every now and then.

So, unlike the rest of you; after I pickup my girl from the airport i'll have a beer in the name of RMS. Cheers; and thanks.

Re:ESR is wrong; per the usual

[Dogtanian]

None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner.

Ever since he started skewing the Jargon File towards his own political beliefs (over-extending the hacker ethic to cover his 'libertarian' views, which if it was ever entirely true- dubious- certainly *doesn't* represent every hacker nowadays), I got the impression that ESR wants to give the *impression* that every hacker and supporter of free software is behind him and his views, as opposed to actually getting them onside. Or- and there may be some truth in this- perhaps he actually believes that he's more representative than he actually is.

I'm not going to deny his contributions (both in code and support) to the open source movement, but that's more than offset IMHO by his egotism and partisan nature.

Re:Recognizing the need for the GPL...

[harlows_monkeys]

iirc the fsf has said that they consider the GPL to be using copyright against itself and they would be fine with copyright dissapearing altogether

I find this hard to believe. Can you find a cite?

The reason I find it hard to believe is that without copyright, everyone would be free to release binary-only versions of any GPL code.

Re:TC is neutral; DRM is evil (IMO)

[Alsee]

Trusted Computing is about as "neutral" as an apple with a cyanide pill inside. Trusted Computing is explicitlydesigned to be secure against the owner.

Citing the vitimins and nutrients of a poison apple does not make it good or even neutral if they forbid you to have a non-poison apple.

Trusted Computing would be a good thing is the owner were allowed to know his own keys. However it would no longer be "Trusted". Owners could get all of the benefits of Trusted Comptuing and none of the abuses if you were allowed to know your keys. If for example you were allowed, if you wanted, to get key a printed copy of your PrivEK key when you bought the machine and to get your Root Storage Key encrypted to your PrivEK.

That would be a nutricious poison-free apple giving the owner ALL of the security and other owner benefits of Trusted COmputing, all of the benefits you say you want.

can also be used merely to enhance the security of your system

An apple with a cyanide pill gives you vitamines. That is NOT any sort of argument defending Trusted Computing. It is an argument for an otherwise identical apple without any poison pill. It is an argument against Trusted Computing, an argument for identical hardware where you do know your master key.

I'd like to have a system with TC hardware. (As long as any "remote control" functionality can be disabled, which, I suspect, would be hard NOT to arrange.

And the new software Trusted Installation / Trusted Activation will be impossible to install or run at all. The new Trusted files wil be impossible to read. You will be locked out of all of the new Trusted websites... in particular tons of websites will want to use the Trust system to prohibit you from using any sort of pop-up blocker or other ad-blocker. And potentially in a few years under trusted Network Connect... which Microsoft is implementing under the name Network Access Protection.... you may be denied any internet access at all.

Trusted Computing is all about the anti-owner Trust system. It is all about stuffing a poison pill standard inside every new computer sold. It is all about penalizing anyone who does not have a poison pill apple, andslapping handcuffs on anyone who does eat the poison pill apple. They absolutely REFUSE to permit anyone to buy poison-pill-free apples. They absolutely REFUSE to permit you to buy a compatible computer where you can/do know the master key to control your own computer. If you know your master key then you can avoid being locked-out, if you know your master key then you can avoid vendor lock-in, if you know your master key you can unlock DRM files, if you know your master key then it is not a Trusted Computer.

-