Free Software Foundation Begins Rewriting the GPL

Robert writes "The first update to the GNU General Public License in 15 years has begun. Details about the process and guidelines by which it will be updated by the Free Software Foundation, and the free/open source community at large, are now available. The FSF has announced plans to release the first draft of the new license for comment at a conference to be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in mid-January 2006." From the article: "This is the first time the GPL has been open to a public development process. Stallman created version 1 himself in 1985 and introduced version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice and collecting developer opinion. The rapid adoption of Linux and hundred of other software products licensed under the GPL makes the development of GPLv3 a significant event, and one that is now likely to involve some of the biggest vendors in the industry, with Hewlett-Packard, Novell, and Red Hat already having declared their intention to participate."

Comments

The largest amendment to this new draft...

[slughead]

... are the words "no, seriously."

Re:The largest amendment to this new draft...

[krgallagher]

"The largest amendment to this new draft..."

The requirement that all free software be called GNU/Software.

Re:The largest amendment to this new draft...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll amend it with a declaration saying that if your software is not licensed under GPL it is not free software (and, in small type, that the streets must run red with the blood of unbelievers).

Re:Software Patents...

[maxwell demon]

Well, it's fairly easy to address them. Just use the address of the Patent Office.

Re:My First Question

[Cecil]

Congratulations, you're ridiculous and have completely missed the point.

You can write code in RMS's editor, Emacs, without having to put it under the GPL.

He's not interested in "restricting your freedom" (if that's what you choose to feel like the GPL does) to do whatever the hell you want with your own code. He's interested in restricting your freedom" to do whatever the hell you want with HIS CODE.

If you don't want the GPL to 'infect' your application, then DON'T USE GPL'D CODE. Write it yourself, you lazy ass.

Re:Well I *do* ...

[Risen888]

*looking over lease*
Hey, wait a goddamned minute here!

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[frank_adrian314159]

Why do people think forks are bad?

I wasn't aware they did - they work much better than chopsticks for most Westerners, for instance...

Come on, editors!

[ccharles]

How about explaining what the GPL is? Geez... give us some background to go on...

Suggested language for the new GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
      documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

This software is provided by author and contributors "as is" and
any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
are disclaimed. In no event shall author or contributors be liable.... ...even if advised of the possibility of such damage.

ADDENDUM: The authors of previous versions of this license would like to apologize for
being control freaks and pathetic wankers with nothing to do besides bore Slashdot readers
with expositions of their hopelessly loopy utopian political ideology.