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."
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.
This doesn't work. Suppose I fork your project. Now I am the project leader for my fork. Should I be allowed to relicense everyone elses under any GPL version because I forked?
This is actually worse than the existing clause because that means I can relicense your code to any GPL version instead of just later versions.
I actually question why we need a GPL V3 in the first place. The current GPL works perfectly well and I don't see any reason to bother using the new license at all.
Simon
Some people seem to think that clause allows the FSF to release a license that subverts the original ideal behind the GPL. But the new license must be similar in spirit to the current version according to section 9 of the license.
- These characters were randomly selected.
No, it doesn't mean GPL'd software can't be used in a weapon. It means avoiding unintended consequences that might stifle the freedom of free software development. You'd still be free to make a Linux controlled guided missile.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
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
While I don't doubt what you say, and don't suppose for a moment that the FSF would ever go rogue, here's a little thought experiment - would it be possible to slightly alter section 9, perhaps over a number of revisions of the GPL, such that eventually the wording allowed for wholesale changes to the licence? As long as each revision is itself similar in spirit, they should be okay, and of course with each passing revision the amount of similarity required would drop.
Not saying they'd ever do this, just wondering if it would be possible.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
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.
We need version 3 because a lot of commercial developers are wary of the version 2 license: cleaning up some of the language and making very clear what it means for the future, along with some minor concessions for wary developers, can encourage them to use the software and participate in its development.
We see this now with Novell and their evolution client, and we've seen copyright vagaries with X-windows, SSH, Kerberos, and other technologies in the past. Good clear language with weird exceptions addressed carefully is the hallmark of OSS.