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

Re:My First Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the big thing that wasn't in v2 is language regarding patent stuff. I believe all the relatively recent patent hoopla is the main reason why they decided they need a v3 GPL.

Re:Why does Linux make this important?

[cortana]

When the article meantioned "Linux" it meant "GNU/Linux" as opposed to Linux-the-kernel. A log of GNU/Linux software uses the GPL with the upgrade clause--hence it is important.

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

One issue is that some companies use GPLed software and modify and extend it, but don't release it (the GPL only requires you to publish your modifications if you release the software). But these companies run the modified software on their webservers, so it is in use.

Now that more and more applications run simply over the web, with no publishing involved, some people (like RMS) are interested to extend the concept of Free Software to web apps.

Re:My First Question

[SwiftOne]

There are a few issues that the GPLv2 doesn't cover, or is a bit too vague on. As I understand the desired improvements, some big points are:

* Language that is happier with different jurisdictions. (some legal terms have very different meanings in different countries)
* Patents. Patents Icky. Dealing with Patents Icky.
* Wrapping binaries. I think some parties want some more clear language here to prevent violations of the spirit of the GPL.
* with GPLv2, if you expose the service of the software but not the binary, you don't have to distribute changes. So I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.

I don't think the idea is to toss the GPLv2, but instead to keep doing the same thing...only more so.

Software Patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the introduction of the GPL2 Software Patents have reared their ugly head and need to be addressed.

Re:But that's not an option.

[mindstrm]

They are not forced into anything whatseover, ever.

When you download my code, licended under, say, GPLv2, and it says this.. it means that you may distribute deriviations of my code under the GPLv2 if you wish, or a later version, if you wish. How you want to apply this is up to you; I force you to do nothing.
If you wish to include the same clause, allowing future versions to be used, that was completely your choice.

Nobody is forced into anything at all.. the rightsholders deliberately gave you the right to pick a later version of the GPL becaues they trust the FSF.

Simple, right?

Re:Stallman's GPLv3 mailing list

[j00bar]

The mailing list info-gplv3 is how rms is going to announce developments in the process (e.g. draft releases). Additionally, there will be opportunities for volunteers to contribute to the drafting process beyond offering your two-cents, which will also be solicited via the info-gplv3 mailing list. The "I want to participate" basically translates to: "Keep me informed on what's going on so that I can make informed choices about my own involvement." Except that would have been a wee-bit wordy for a web form button. :-)

-jag, a.k.a. jag@fsf.org

NYTimes' take...

[veg_all]

Here's a New York Times article from yesterday. Fun quote:

In Mr. Stallman's view, proprietary software is an unwarranted restriction on the freedom of information. The revision of the G.P.L., he said, is "part of something bigger - part of the long-term effort to liberate cyberspace." Software patents, he said, are "utterly insane."

For Microsoft's part, Steven A. Ballmer, its chief executive, has called the G.P.L. a "cancer."

Yet in his way, Mr. Stallman is also quite pragmatic. Proprietary software applications can run on Linux without restrictions, which is important for the survival of Linux as a viable alternative to commercial operating systems.

Re:My First Question

[cortana]

It doesn't have to turn into an EULA.

The kind of clauses being speculated about are those such as, (very broadly) you may not remove the software's ability to provide a link to the source code to the end user.

Copyright law reserves the rights of distribution and modification to the copyright holder. So the copyright holder may grant you the right to distribute and modify the software as long as you don't remove the source code distribution functionality.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[rkcallaghan]

Someone else hasn't read the GPL. From section 7:

...if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

In effect, you must either license the patent royalty-free for derived works of the GPL'd code, or you must not use the GPL. Or, as the preamble puts it:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Just because the GPLv2 / GPL FAQ / etc says the only way to do it is X, doesn't make it true. Here's a couple of ideas:

* Abuse of international boundaries to "comply", without complying in any signifigant portion of the world. Or in short, complying in Elbonia, while having patent tricks you can then "blame" on the United States.

* Abuse of United States interpretation of patent law which seperates the ability to see/read the code from the ability to do anything with it. In fact, this issue often makes it worse -- a programmer can become "tainted".

And my friend, if it were as cut and simple as you claim, patent problems would not be the #1 issue involved in the GPLv3. Crooked lawyers and bought precedent have created an issue where there "shouldn't" have been one. The folks at the FSF are taking it in stride and adjusting to deal with it. Law is constantly changing, and they knew someday they'd need to "get with the times" -- that's why the "or any later version" clause was put in in the first place.

Perhaps you would do well to do more than "read the GPL" and go through this thread accusing others (this isn't your only post with that claim) of not reading it. Try reading discussions on the topic, particularly anything involving actual lawyers and authors.

~Rebecca