Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?