Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3 May Require Websites to Relinquish Code
Vicissidude writes "At present, companies that distribute GPL-licensed software must make the source code publicly available, including any modifications they've made. Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends, it doesn't cover Web companies that use such software to offer their services through the Web, as they're not actually distributing the software.
GPL 3, the next version of the free software license, a draft of which is expected to be released in early 2006, may close this loophole, GPL author and Free Software Foundation head Richard Stallman said in an interview."
Am I the only one that sees this as a boon to M$ FUD? Many customers are not going to understand the finer points of the closed-proprietary vs. open source debate, and are going to be confused by conflicting concepts of ownership. I can understand that greater transparency vis a vis the license can help shine the spotlight on the virtues of the open source community, but I do think that this will be overtaken by the confusion it creates amongst the adoption decision makers....to say nothing of the reactionary attempt Microsoft will surely make to exploit it.
I don't have any particular problems with the GPL3 except that it is very very different from the GPL as it currently exists. (I don't have problems with it per se... I personally think it's a little bit too "viral" but that is anothe debate entirely. Software authors have the right to specify whatever terms they want for software they write.) GPLv3 removes a lot of freedoms granted to licensees under GPLv2 and as such the specific wording of a piece fo software licensed under the GPL could easily be misconstrued. What if, for instance, the software simply claims to be licensed "Under the terms of the GNU GPL"? Which version is it supposed to reference? From a legal standpoint either party could argue that it might be licensed under the terms of ANY existant version of the GPL license!
The two licenses are so dissimilar in fact that I think that the forthcoming GPL license should have a new name and/or abbreviation. The GPL as it stands has furthered a specific idea and revisions to it have always served the purpose of clarification. The GPLv3 license is quite wildly different in purpose than any GPL license before it and as such should be renamed appropriately. Microsoft might call it the RGPL as in "Restricted GPL License" while Stallman might prefer "SOPFEEGPL" as in "Stallman's own personal Fuck Everyone Else GPL"
I should interject here that I have been *specifically* licensing my software under GPLv2 for many years now. I don't want some freakshow whom I cannot control being able to change the terms by which my code may be used. I am happy to contribute to many other projects (including the Linux kernel) which are specifically GPLv2, but I will rot in hell the day I license something under the bastard abomination that is the GPLv3 license.
Sounds like one more reason to release code under the BSD license, so it can be truly free.
The GPL version of "freedom" isn't.