Slashdot Mirror
Guidelines for GPLv3 Process Released
Justin Baugh writes "The Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center have released a document detailing the guidelines and the process that will be used for revising the GNU GPL, and have launched a new website related to the V3 process. It was announced in a press release this morning that the FSF will be releasing the first discussion draft of the new license for comments at the International Public Conference for GPLv3 at MIT on January 16 and 17, 2006."
Little-discussed new clause in GPLv3:
"Every program licensed under this license must contain the phrase 'Micro$oft sux0rs!!!1' somewhere in the source code and/or documentation."
.. namely the one in which you grant permission for your software to be distributed according to any future version of the GPL. I do know you are not required to include this clause, but both decisions can have consequences.
Without it, it can be hard for the licensing to adapt to new requirements if not all the copyright owners can be found.
With it, you are at the mercy of the Free Software Foundation, when it comes to new versions of the GPL. I trust the FSF completely not to have any hidden motives, but it still might be that a future version of the GPL does not suit you.
A clause of "NAME OF FOUNDER OF PROJECT is free to upgrade this license to any future version of the GPL at his/her discretion" might be a better idea. This way, you CAN switch to new versions of the GPL even though you have thousands of contributors each with individual copyright on bits of the code, but you can also refuse to license the software under a future version of the GPL if it is not in your interest.
Can some one explain the "Do no harm" bit? I am hoping it means GPL'd software can't be used in a weapon ... but i admit i just skim read ...
1. There is no clause obligating GPL licensers to license a work under the GPL version X "or any subsequent versions". As a matter of fact, most of the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL v2 ONLY; arguably, as most of linux is a derivative work of the initial GPL v2 ONLY Torvalds job, they have to abide to the terms of the GPL v2.
2. It's a matter of trusting the FSF (which I don't (*)) or trusting [INSERT PERSON HERE]; my proposal is simpler: Trust the LAW. It's the only thing that (much like a computer) will do exactly as told to (and, much like a computer, you may be saying different from what you mean).
So, my suggestions will be (I'm signing in right now):
1. keep all rights given by the GPLv2, so GPLv3 will be compatible;
2. eliminate the "nonexistent linking clause", by:
2.1. stating what is NOT TO BE CONSIDERED a derivative work;
2.2. leaving all other definitions to the law.
3. don't try to mess with patents or trademarks because this would be incompatible with #1.
4. don't try to mess with choice of law or choice or venue because this would be incompatible with #1 AND non-free.
5. change the language so it's more comprehensible and leave no ambiguity behind.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
CDDL, MPL, BSD, etc. are not variations of the GPL, some of them are libraries which have more or less the same sprit, but they are still completly different licenses.
The GPL is not giving your code away for free.
The GPL is a license to ensure that your code and other code built using it remains open and usable by others.
Just giving the code away for free would allow an evil company to take somebodies hard work and lock it up in an exe shell with a squad of lawyers protecting the source.
Public Domain is noble but not wise.
liqbase
Also, in the spirit of freedom, efficiency and 'less government' shouldn't the main goal of editing the GPL be reducing the word count and removing all lawyer speek (if there was any)?
RTFL before you speak of things you do not know. The GPL is extremely brief, and extremely free of legal mumbo-jumbo. Believe it or not, a bit on the skimpy side at times. Not to mention it's a license you can read once, and know what it says a thousand times. Try comparing it to any commercial license, and I don't mean just the infamous MS EULAs. I mean to every license ever touched by a company lawyer. And if you had read the other licenses as well, you'd see they are quite different both from each other and from the GPL...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Maybe you haven't seen a good answer because you haven't read the GPL FAQ?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
its a world of choice - if you have that much of a problem with gpl then dont use it. just because you dont like it doesnt mean others shouldnt be freely allowed to use it if they like. natural selection will sort it all out in the end - who are you to play god?
the future isnt about narrowing down our choices to only one style of license - its about broadening them. to some companies, real - money driven - licenses make sense. others it doesnt. you'll be ok. i promise.
What's wrong with version 2?
Why do we need v3?
Expecially since a lot of people seem scared by what could come out this time.
The second is that RMS doesn't use the term "open source" to describe "free software". Both are, in practice, loaded terms. Free Software is associated with an ideology RMS himself identifies (and is identified) with strongly. It has baggage in terms of being associated with the right to modify and/or redistribute software you've been given. By comparison, Open Source has baggage too - it's generally associated with the superiority of a development model where anyone can contribute, and the movement to sell this development model to businesses and other professional software developers in the hope it'll encourage the creation of free software. You may feel (and a lot of people would agree with you) that this is a trivial distinction when both, ultimately, refer to software that can be freely modified and redistributed, but RMS is as interested in the baggage as he is the destination, and as such he would distance himself from any comment implying any view of "open source" and what it should be.
Nothing. In fact, you wouldn't even need to modify it. And some people actually fund the development of their Free Software projects by selling copies of their programs with licenses even more liberal than RMS proposes, and do so successfully. OpenBSD uses CD sales as one of a range of funding sources, with grants and gifts from concerned parties who want OpenBSD to provide them with the features they need to be developed. This is actually something the Free Software Foundation used to do with GNU, they'd sell tapes for several hundred dollars containing the latest versions. With the Internet, that became less useful (and not worth several hundred dollars to most people), but for a time it was a good source of funding.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
RMS is a hacker. RMS thinks the innovative 3D engine in Quake is really cool, and wants to be able to play around with it to see what else he can make it do. He wants to create new things based on Quake: I recall, once the source was released, there was a mod that made Quake into a flight sim, another that gave you a warped fish-eye view, there was ttyQuake which was just deeply wrong, there were ports of Quake to every machine that would sit still long enough...
But RMS doesn't give a damn about the levels iD happened to provide along with Quake - why should he? To a hacker, they're irrelevant. Suppose Microsoft were to say 'right, you can have the code to the Windows kernel, NTFS, SMB, the Word and Excel file formats, all under GPL. But the fonts, sound effects and wallpapers, those we're keeping.' Well, who cares? We can create our own fonts and wallpapers, dammit...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
My company is developing some software that we will release as OSS. I doubt that we will use GPLv.3.
;)
Depends if you can wait 'til Spring 2007
I think it goes too far.
How far? There is not even a public draft. Do you mean GPLv2?
And I don't like that the FSF can change it anytime in the future.
They can't. Once the text is out, it is definitive.
Million Dollar Screenshot
(*) MHO:
1. I respect RMS for his role in setting in motion the Free Software movement.
2. (corollary) I respect RMS for his role in starting GCC (which I use) and EMACS (which I don't use).
3. I respect the FSF and RMS for their roles in furthering the cause of Free software.
4. I don't trust the FSF and RMS to know that sometimes even well-intentioned people do things contrary to their own beliefs.
5. (corollary) The GFDL is non-free and sucks. Freedom should be equally applicable to all kinds of software: programs, libraries and other content types.
6. (corollary) The whole "GPL forbids (dyn)linking with GPL-incompatible works" party line is an outrageous lie, and it sucks. And, even if it seems to boost the FS movement (GPL'd Qt! Hey!) I think it does more harm than good.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048