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.

My First Question

[Ckwop]

Why? The GPL2 does everything I want it to.

Simon.

Re:My First Question

[SComps]

If they don't rewrite it, they'll be forgotten and therefore have no purpose or publicity.

Here in my office we call it busy work.

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:My First Question

[zx75]

Then stick with using GPL v2. But just because it is adequate for your needs, doesn't mean that it neccisarily addresses the concerns of everyone who chooses to use it. Hence the rewrite.

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

[LiquidCoooled]

Doesn't this dilute the skills pot though.

If I see some GPL code, I cannot just use it. I will have to check if its the correct version of GPL before I can bring it in.

This will end in tears.

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.

Re:My First Question

[Bogtha]

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.

The big problem is that this changes the GPL into a EULA. Right now, the GPL doesn't attempt to restrict anything, it merely grants privileges that would not usually be in effect. That's why it's such a strong license.

To change the GPL to include restrictions on how you use the software would seem to run counter to the ideals of Free Software; namely that you are free to use the software as you please. It's also vulnerable to the same criticisms of other EULAs. Basically, the only thing that allows copyright holders to bind you to terms is the fact that you are copying. But copying for the purpose of using the software (e.g. installation) is explicitly not copyright infringement under USA law. That means that if you are merely using the software, the copyright holder has no leverage to bind you to their terms.

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:My First Question

[Fujisawa Sensei]

First off the auther said GPLm not BSD, Artistic, or WTFPL.

Secondly it does matter, because there is no requirement for source-code download linking in GPL

If that clause does make it into GPL V3+ it will make a big honking difference.

Re:My First Question

[MobyDisk]

You are incorrect.

Copyright law reserves the rights of distribution and modification to the copyright holder.

Copyright does not reserve the right of modification, only distribution. A modification is called a "derived work" but copyright does not prevent you from creating derived works. It only prevents distributing them. And that brings us back to the original problem, which is that if you run your own server then you aren't distributing them.

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.

Why does Linux make this important?

[N3Roaster]

I keep reading about this, and I can never figure why the rapid adoption of Linux makes GPLv3 important. Sure, there are a lot of projects that use the GPL that allow distribution under the current or any future version of the GPL, but Linux isn't one of them. From /usr/src/linux/COPYING

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

So what's the Linux connection here?

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.

Stallman's GPLv3 mailing list

[ubiquitin]

Anyone subscribe to Stallman's new mailing list?
http://www.gplv3.fsf.org/index05

I hesitated because it didn't just say "subscribe".
The submit button says "I want to participate." which is hard to do without knowing exactly what you're participating in first.

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

My vote..

[hackdot]

My vote would be to change the requirement of including to just making sources publicly available. Geez. This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros. They balloon to incredibly huge sizes and a good portion of that is because they have to include the sources. Am I the only one that remembers the old days of a 50MB, usable OS install?

Re:My vote..

[panthro]

Part of the problem with that is that someone could then distribute binaries, presumably for profit of some kind, and make the sources publicly available but hard to obtain. How would you stop someone from, say, obscuring the location of the sources, requiring free registration (read: handing over of e-mail address to spammers) to the site to obtain them, or some other such nonsense? Requiring them to be distributed with the binaries means that the sources are guaranteed to be as easy to obtain as the binaries.

Re:My vote..

[golden_spray]

I think the current wording of the GPL requires that you provide the source code to anyone that requests it. So in general it is far more convient to just bundle them together. Consider the case of someone who acquires the binaries but does not have internet access. To provide the source code you will need to physically send them a copy. If you distribute binaries, simply posting the source online is not necessary good enough (according to GPLv2).

This wording was created pre-internet boom, so it is not clear if that could be changed or not. From a purests point of view, why should someone unable to access the "public place" be denied access to the source code?

Re:My vote..

[Kjella]

My vote would be to change the requirement of including to just making sources publicly available. Geez. This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros. They balloon to incredibly huge sizes and a good portion of that is because they have to include the sources. Am I the only one that remembers the old days of a 50MB, usable OS install?

You're aware that most (all?) distros don't include source in their releases? They are typically released on separate source discs which you'd have to go out of your way to download, so they already do what you want. And they have the option to provide a written offer valid for three years instead as well. The distros have "ballooned" to full CDs because they are complete OS and application suites with multiple choices of software? I think the smallest you can get to have a booting system is a Debian business card or there abouts, with a few light apps on top you have a usable install in 50MB. But there's no way you can provide a full KDE or Gnome desktop complete with all major server apps in 50MB, and I don't see the point of trying.

If anything, I think they should remove section b) and c) entirely. If you distribute online, you can offer a separate source download. If you prepackage and distribute it like a box install, you need to include source (a few cents on a CD). The "written offer" is being abused to obscure source code by providing the binaries for easy download, and only deliver source on CD-ROMs after processing time using the manhour cost of burning CDs to discourage people from doing it, like with the Linksys router software.

Reasons for a rewrite ?

[johnhennessy]

Are there issues with the current GPL that need to be fixed ? Or even some parts that need to be clarified ?

If there are actual issues with the license, then a rewrite is a good thing - all I'm concerned about is that people don't waste time developing a new license when one isn't needed. In the end, its adoption will be decided by the various projects - on a case by case basis, so just because there is a version 3, doesn't guarantee adoption, unless it brings benefits. ... And hopefully it doesn't spawn pro- and anti- GPLv3 wars in every GPLv2 project ! While licensing is important, it shouldn't create huge overheads that distract developers from doing what they do best.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[rkcallaghan]

Are there issues with the current GPL that need to be fixed ?

The GPLv2 doesn't properly deal with patent issues, only copyright. Thus, with some legal smoke and mirrors, it is possible to comply with the letter of the GPLv2, gaining free use of other GPLv2 code in the process, while shipping your code/product under patent restrictions, preventing it from being redistrobutable or adjustable freely.

~Rebecca

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[kebes]

Some people want the GPL to be rewritten so that you are forced to release the source code for a modified/derivative product, even if you don't distribute the resulting program/binary.

For instance, some people are somewhat annoyed that Google has a huge number of linux boxes running, and that they have tweaked and customized the linux code to get their own special version of linux. They clearly benefit from the open-source nature of linux, but do not release the changes they make. This is allowed under the GPL because they are not distributing the resultant program. They are only using it internally. Yet, they are distributing information/data/effects derived from the program (the return of search results comes from a linux system... even though they don't distribute the program itself to the end-user).

It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate. If a company modifies GPL code and uses it only internally, should they be forced to publish the source code? What about the military? They want to use GPL code in their projects, but are not likely to accept releasing changes they make (for a whole variety of reasons!). Maybe a middle-ground is required: you need to distribute source/changes if you distribute the program/binaries AND if you distribute data resulting from this program (i.e.: even if the customer interacts with the program indirectly, and never has the binary on their system, they are still a "user" and need access to the source).

That's just one example of something that the original GPL didn't consider, and may be worthy of consideration now.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[j00bar]

There are most definitely reasons for a rewrite, and most of them have to with developments that have taken our industry by storm since 1991 and which will continue to impact us in the near future. The GPLv2 does not successfully account for many of these.

Some questions which will likely be considered in the GPLv3 drafting process:

1) Back in 1991, the GPL was written centered on specifics to United States Copyright Law. With the diversification of international copyright law since the Berne convention -- some countries have implemented various manifestations of DMCA like laws, others have not -- how does a license that must govern international transactions of copyright account for these discrepancies?

2) How can software patents encumber free software? For example, let's say I write a word processor that is licensed under the GPLv2 and I submit and receive a patent for my word processor document format. If you write a derivative work of my word processor, are you infringing on my patent? Does that violate the principles of software freedom?

3) How does Trusted Computing encumber free software? For example, let's say I write the software for a DVR that uses GPL software and is licensed under the GPL. But let's further say that my DVR used TPM, and it won't run the DVR software if it is not signed with my private key. You can modify the source, and you may even be able to load a modified binary back onto the DVR, but without me signing your binary, it won't run. Does that violate the principles of software freedom?

I don't know the answers. They haven't been decided yet. These may not be all the questions -- they may not be among the questions. But that these questions are out there are symbolic of the need for a community-driven effort to reassess the future of software freedom.

The GPLv3 process will be a discussion of the free software community on how we can best ensure that the essential freedoms the GPL tries to protect are in fact protectable. And though rms is the final arbiter of what GPLv3 will actually be, these are questions that we the free software community as a whole need to discuss.

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

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

$100 says this is to address software patents...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

$100 says this new version is being created largely to address software patents. I'd be surprised if there aren't several new sections of the license that attempt to address this area.

But that's not an option.

[CyricZ]

Observe that the notice used by much GPL software contains the following:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Anyone using the GPL v2 is potentially forced into having their software licensed under the GPL v3, and the GPL v4, and the GPL v5, or any other future version of the GPL.

Even if that particular user wants his program released under only the terms of the GPL v2, if such a notice is included in his software then it may very well be that future versions of the license are applicable.

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?

I disagree

[p3d0]

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.

How does this violate the spirit of the GPL? We'd have to ask Mr. Stallman for an official answer, but in my opinion, the GPL was intended to maximize people's freedom with regards to the software they use, and I don't see how forcing web sites to publish their server code enhances anyone's freedom.

Re:I disagree

[Syberghost]

The question is are the users the web site administrator or the web site visitors. I think the argument could be made the users are the web site visitors, so they should have access to the code. They are operating the program, just that they are using a longer wire then your keyboard wire.

This is about like saying that if you come over to visit me in my house, you have the right to paint it.

We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[CyricZ]

Having talked to various developers, these recent licensing shenanigans have not been particularly good for the open source community.

Many developers wish to make use of open source software, but are getting to the point where they're not sure what exactly they're allowed to do with some particular piece of software.

These developers are not lawyers, and do not want to waste their time trying to figure out fairly complex licenses. Individual consultants and smaller development firms can't necessarily afford to hire a lawyer to verify that they're complying with the terms of all the licenses their project may be subjected to.

I know many professional developers who won't even touch LGPL'ed libraries. They stick with software released under the BSD license, for instance, because it has very clear and concise terms. They know what they can do with such software, and thus can focus on developing solutions, rather than getting bogged down in legal nonsense.

While the GPL v3 may offer some degree of protection with respect to patents, any such benefits may be mitigated by the fact that many developers out there are not interested in becoming lawyers. They don't want to get bogged down trying to interpret relatively complex licenses.

Re:We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Yes, it's so much easier to try and understand the license when every singe application and library has it's own license such as on Windows. Who in their right mind would think a choice between ten or so licenses that are clearly explained here and here is easier to understand?

Re:We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[real gumby]

That's cool. For some software I use a 3P license and pay a cash royalty; I generally use the compiler-included helper libraries (arithmetic conversions and startup code end the like) without worrying about it, and most of the time of use free code of various stripes. In all of those cases I check the license -- sometimes it's quite enlightening even in the case where you think you paid the developer $25K for a royalty-free buy-out! To me these are all just special cases of the same thing. The fact is that _regardless_ of where the code came from you have to do this checking. If you optimize by finding one or two that happen to work for you, great. The mere existence of someone who chose BSD as the one to standardize on doesn't especially distinguish it -- I can easily point to companies who only use code they pay for, for whatever reason.

By the way I wrote the original (?13 years ago?) draft that became the 1.0 LGPL you mention. John Gilmore suggested to me what turned out to be the most important clause: that you could dynamically link to such a library without having any licensing impact at all. Those terms are more liberal than any cash-royalty license I've ever seen (and don't even include the announcement clause of the BSD license), and made Linux's userland possible.

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.

Well I *do* ...

[hummassa]

think it was one of Linus's better thought out moves.
Would you sign a contract to rent a place that said "the landlord's nephew can at anytime change the terms of this contract at will"?

Re:Well I *do* ...

[Risen888]

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

Re:Software Patents...

[maxwell demon]

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

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[nuggz]

Why do people think forks are bad?

When two people have two different goals why should we try and force them to work together?

Re:My pragmatic approach

[vga_init]

I wish the FSF well in its quest to create the perfect balance between freedom and the protection of creators' rights.

The GPL is designed around the idea that "what's good for the community is good for the individual." Because of this reasoning, the GPL seeks to defend the public first by making the developer/contributor give up certain luxuries, such as that of closing the source or not releasing it (this in turn helps your FOSS project not to be hijacked and closed by a private enterprise). It allows you to sell it, but not the luxury of telling others that they can't share it.

They used to tell us in school in the United States that "liberty is not freedom to do what we want, but freedom to do what we ought." Freedom can be used to do antisocial things, and things like proprietary softare are fundamentally antisocial. That doesn't mean they aren't good pieces of software, it's just that their goal is not to maximize the benefit to the community but rather to maximize the profit of the author by denying access to classes of people. While you're sacrificing a little bit of freedom to do something antisocial, you're in turn creating a vast amount of freedom for everyone else.

I'm not sure what "rights" the creator has that the GPL doesn't protect...I'd like to know more about what you're thinking just to be sure.

As far as I'm concerned, the GPL is the best license for "Free" software in the purest sense of the word. I think it embodies the ideals and goals of our movement. Not all software is Free software, so of course you need other licenses to fit what it is that you'd like to do with your particular project, but I think all of the complaints against the GPL are unwarranted in the sense that they attack it for not being something it was never supposed to be in the first place.

GPLv3 != EULA

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The big problem is that this changes the GPL into a EULA. Right now, the GPL doesn't attempt to restrict anything, it merely grants privileges that would not usually be in effect. That's why it's such a strong license.

To change the GPL to include restrictions on how you use the software would seem to run counter to the ideals of Free Software; namely that you are free to use the software as you please.

I would disagree with this interpretation.

The GPLv2 has never said anything nor placed restriction on how you use the software. In effect, the GPL only comes into play when you some to redistriute the software, and says that you must redistribute the source code when you distribute the binaries to others.

The GPLv3 again will not say anything or place restriction on how you, you use the software. You're still free to tinker as you please privately and keep the changes to yourself. Again on distribution you must include those changes.

However the GPLv3, in response to potential or actual shenannegans with web deployment, will specify that when you also come to offer your software as a service to users, you must also include the changes to your code, and make them and the original code visible to those users.

This makes a lot of sense. When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them. Albiet now the licence is for an extremely limited time, and the calculations are taking place on my machine. However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.

In a way the GPLv3 is a lot better than GPLv2. The GPLv2 only covered the distribution of the binary of the program. GPLv3 covers the service of the program, or more succinctly, the program itself. If you offer the service of the program to someone else, directly, in whatever way, then you must show them your source code. You can see that binaries fall under this definition as well.

Of course companies will try to write wrapper programs to get around this, so that users are not directly using their app, etc, etc, etc. However, I think most won't go to the bother and will just publish their code. After all, how many trade secrets are going to be in your average php/asp page anyway.

It's all about making sure that users are empowered, and that software is both transparent and modifyable to everyone. Stallman originally argued on the grounds of modifyability, which of course is critical to the whole process. But the transparency conferred by this has benefits for the public at large which outweight even the benefits of modifyability. But you need modifyability in order for software to be free. Just having transparency would be like am autocracy having transparency in its government offices. You might be able to see what's going on, but you still can't do anything about it.

Re:GPLv3 != EULA

[Arandir]

However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.

You are playing semantic word games. The users of the service are no more using the software than I am using the accounting software of my accountant when he does my taxes. Service is a use, and by regulating servicing, the GPLv3 will be regulating usage. Say goodbye to GPLv2 Clause 0!

This isn't merely the nose of the camel entering the tent, this is RMS putting the camel on a truck and driving it in! Are web servers covered as well? Thankfully Apache will never use the GPLv3, otherwise tens of thousands of websites out there would be liable to provide its source code to anyone who visits their sites. Hell, imagine the legal obligations if I use a v3 licensed GIMP to edit a friend's photos!

When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them.

No you are not! "Distribution" has a specific and well understood meaning in copyright law. Before you were playing semantic games, now you're just making up definitions.

Here is a good analogy: a roleplaying game. If give a player a copy of "Tomb of Horrors", it is distribution. If you make a copy of it and give the copy to a player, it is distribution. If you place a copy of it on the web for the player to access, it is distribution. But, if you merely run a group of players through the adventure, it is NOT distribution, even though you are providing the services of the adventure to them.

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...

The legal trap

[stock]

"Jim Gatto, intellectual property and patent attorney for the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm, says version 3 of the GPL has been a long time coming. "A number of people have raised different concerns about the GPL," Gatto says."

Well there we have it. Where the GPLv2 was and still is maybe the most brilliant example of a software license ever, I today already see it coming that GPLv3 will become the deepest pitch hole in which a Open Source project can slide into. Where in the recent past originating project authors like Harald Welte from iptables could single handed see their GPLv2 being validated in court, by use of limited efforts, i predict the death of open source, simply by the need of outrageous legal resources to defend your GPLv3 license in court.

When that happens, Free and Open Source Software using the GPL License will have died in the hands of the humble programmers, and big software corporations will use GPLv3 as a disguised License cover to simply continue their old practices, and feed their Corporations with the efforts of a new generation of open source programmer employees, who have been trained to think that their job is helping the open source community.

The GPLv3 might even derange GPL-ed Open Source into big Corporations only projects , as no ordinary hobby programmer will be able to afford the costs of such a thing.

So do not fall into this trap. The GPLv2 has never been overturned so far in court. Why introduce a expensive legal vehicle, which the GPLv3 might become, to see the GPL finally get defeated in Court, only because the defendants went out of cash?

Robert