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.

Re:It also appers to mandate s/w features

[albalbo]

Nothing in the GPLv3 is remotely decided. People keep throwing ideas out there to see which fly, some may, most won't.

Re:It also appers to mandate s/w features

[Chris Burke]

Only one feature. The previous paragraph from TFA:

Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?

Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.

But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.

So the "such a command" phrase in the paragraph you quoted does not mean "any command". It refers to a specific command to allow source download of a web-app. It doesn't say whether this command would have to still exist if you didn't use your modification as a web-app.

I'm not sure I like that kind of clause, but it is very different than what you said. You statement made me worry that RMS would do something as foolish as mandate an unchanging feature set and interface, but that isn't true.

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

[eobanb]

Well see this preview is like a GPL beta. Or unstable. In fact, let's called it something like GPL, the Messy Midget. I suggest you try the stable, though perhaps slightly outdated GPL 2.x tree, last updated in 1991.

You know maybe we should have some other distributions of the GPL. We could have one called GPLspire, that basically comes with a legal team that you have to pay for each month to ensure that others don't violate your licence. Or how about SlackGPL, that tries to be as much like the Communist Manifesto as possible.

Burn, karma, burn.

--Eoban

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.

Re:The freedom to confuse

[swillden]

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.

I think the more likely "problem" scenario is where a developer on a GPLv2 project wishes to borrow code from a GPLv3 project. However, very few projects are GPLv2... most of them use RMS' recommended language and are therefore best described as GPLv2+, where the '+' means that the code can be released under any later GPL version.

Let me see if I can enumerate the possible scenarios and describe the effect of each.

• GPLv2+ borrows from GPLv3+. No problem, but the specific files imported/modified are under GPLv3+, and the project as a whole is distributed under GPLv3+.
• GPLv2+ borrows from GPLv3. No problem. The result is GPLv3. This might be a bad idea if the GPLv2+ project wishes to be distributable under GPLv4+.
• GPLv2 borrows from GPLv3 or GPLv3+. Can't do it. One side or the other must provide another license.
• GPLv3+ borrows from GPLv2+. No problem.
• GPLv3+ or GPLv3 borrows from GPLv2. Can't do it.
• GPLv3 borrows from GPLv2. Can't do it.
• GPLv3 borrows from GPLv2+. I don't think there's a problem here. The recommended RMS language would seem to allow a user to remove the upgradeability.

That looks bad, but in practice I doubt it will be. Very few projects are GPLv2, and probably even fewer will be GPLv3. The only major project I know of under GPLv2 is the Linux kernel, and it is sufficiently important that it's unlikely to be hampered by the inability to pull in GPLv3[+] code. If a feature is generally desirable in Linux, someone will invest the effort to re-implement it for Linux. In most cases that really has to be done anyway, for technical reasons.

I think that if GPLv3 adds enough value to be compelling, most projects will end up migrating to it. Those, like Linux, that can't will simply continue onward with GPLv2. They may wish they had the GPLv3, though, if the FSF can find some language that handles the patent issue well.

ESR best forgotten

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

In a recent interview, Eric Raymond shocked many Free Software developers. Interviewed developers commented "What? Is he still around? Now there is someone you don't think about anymore." Raymond's contentious statements were uniformly viewed as desperate cries for attention by a once notable software developer. A sympathetic developer commented, "I certainly hope ESR gets the professional counciling he so obviously needs; he just needs to learn that you can lead a productive life outside the limelight. I know of a good support group for people like him and Dvorak."

I can't help thinking that

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS would've made a great Supreme Court justice, had he gotten his law degree

Section 4 Article 16

[Anonymous Coward]

All developers and advocates of GPL software hereby agree to bathe on a minimum of a daily basis. Those developers that face the public further agree that they will brush their teeth priort to any such encounter, no matter how brief!

I could believe this part, especially coming from RMS. It's no wonder ESR said we didn't need the GPL anymore.

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:It's 2005, not 1985.

[swillden]

With all due respect, that's completely unproven, and in my opinion, completely untrue.

I recall an interview with the Linux team at IBM where they said they did not think IBM would have contributed code under a BSD license. It was important to IBM that IBM's competitors not be able to use their code in proprietary products. I'm sure there are plenty of other cases where significant contributions to Linux would not have happened if it were under another license.

It's hard to say that the GPL was essential to Linux, but I think it's very clear that the GPL has been helpful to Linux development. It has also enabled a major thrust of IBM's counterattack on SCO, which is perhaps not essential, but very pleasant :-)

Already got it

[Phantasmo]

Just downloaded and installed the beta. Feels much snappier than the last release.

I'll keep you guys posted.

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.

Services

[Richard_at_work]

At last someone on the GPL 3 team has said something that belays my fears about Services and the GPL version 3. The fear was that they would force you to give users access to GPLed code you use when you provide a service - for example forum software. From the article, they talk about developers including an ability to have the service software offer the sourcecode, and the GPL protecting this particular part of the program but not forcing developers to include it in the first place. While this does stop the fears that you would have to provide the sourcecode for every bit of GPL code you use in your service, it does open the door for limitations on modifications in GPLed programs, similiar to invariant sections in the Gnu Documentation License, and Im not decided if this is a good approach or not.

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.

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?

Re:GPL3?

[Knuckles]

Talk about hiding in a cave ;) Version 2 was released in June 1991. Version 1 was released in February 1989.

ESR, GPL, RMS, GNU!

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

Re:Where GPL ends and propriety can start?

[Knuckles]

I would really like to have clarification to my issues...

Ask the FSF's compliance lab:

The GPL Compliance Lab maintains resources for Free Software developers and others to learn about licensing. Members of the Free Software community are encouraged to consult with the FSF regarding licensing issues. However, before contacting the FSF please be sure to have reviewed the GPL FAQ before emailing us.

The Compliance Lab also makes its services available by paid consultation, allowing businesess to access our unique expertise. These consultation services include a software certification program which is explained in detail here.

And OT, when has the FSF revamped their website? Nifty.

WTF? GNU was always political!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

Misunderstanding about Apache licenses

[pauljlucas]

From TFA:

We often hear that some 70 percent of web servers use Apache; what we don't hear is that a large fraction of those servers are using a nonfree modified version of Apache, as permitted by the Apache license.

Those servers could equally well use modified versions of Apache even if Apache were under the GPL. The GPL comes into play only if you distribute your modified versions of Apache. If you keep your changes in-house, the whole issue is moot.

Re:Of course we don't need GPL

[Dogtanian]

GPL is not needed, GUNS are enough -and required- to protect the interest of the shareholders^Wprogrammers.

Eric? Is that you?! Please log in before you post, thanks.

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.

-