First Draft of GPL Version 3 Released

njan writes "The first draft of version three of the GNU General Public License was released to the public this afternoon. Major improvements touted in version three include changes designed to mitigate the damage posed by new threats to free software such as software patents. One individual stated about the release: 'It is changes in law, not computer technology, that pose the principal challenges to the free software community. Chief among these changes has been the unwise and ill-considered application of patent law to software. Software patents threaten every free software project, just as they threaten proprietary software and custom software. Any program can be destroyed or crippled by a software patent belonging to someone who has no other connection to the program.'"

Comments

Other issues

[Renegade Lisp]

The slashdot summary does not quite get the proportions right. Yes, the v3 draft does refine how the GPL deals with patents, but that is only one of many issues in this draft. (I've compiled the list below from cursory reading of the new license and the rationale that accompanies it, before it was slashdotted.)

• There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure". Thus it would always be possible for other programs to get at the same data without falling under the DMCA.
• When it comes to patents, the draft is actually not very aggressive about them. There is no general patent retaliation clause as in some other licenses, because the FSF believes that disallowing an offender to use any free software would not be too much of a deterrent for some.
• Compatibility between the new GPL and other free software licenses will generally be better.
• The idea of what constitutes source code and object code is refined. This, I think, is mostly intended to deal with the case when software is used over the web, rather than downloaded and installed.

Re:Other issues

[Grab]

You're making the incorrect (but common) assumption of "effective" meaning "carrying out its job well". The actual meaning of "effective" in law is "having the effect of". It doesn't have to do its job well, it just has to do its job such that it gives a certain effect.

For example, a cheap padlock out of a Christmas cracker is not "effective" in that it does its job well, because anyone can pick it with a paperclip. But it's "effective" in that if you, say, secure your house with it, then anyone picking the lock to gain entry is automatically guilty of breaking and entering.

That's one of the ironies of the DMCA. Any DRM system doesn't have to do its job well - it's enough for the RIAA to say "this is the intention of the system" and they're covered. That's why it's such a bad law, because it gives total advantage to one group of people (media producers) without requiring any corresponding responsibilities from them.

Grab.

Re:Cut the "any later version" option

[belmolis]

The phrase "or any later version" is not part of the GPL. Rather it is part of the statement in which you specify that the GPL is the license that you are using. The FSF recommends including this phrase but it isn't required by them or by the GPL. You are perfectly free to specify a particular version of the GPL if you wish to.

Re:Relicense?

[Bogtha]

One question for OSS projects currently using GPL, will be, should they relicense?

Most GPLed software already gives you the option of choosing to use a later version of the GPL, so no relicensing needs to happen.

For example, should Linux become GPL3'd?

Linux is a special case. It's explicitly GPL version 2 only, and most of the code has been submitted with that understanding. If Linus wanted to switch to this new version, he'd have to get permission from everybody who's got code in Linux.

Read it with the Rationale Document!

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF have provided a document explaining the rationale behind the changes in each section of the license.

Before blindly criticizing the wording of a certain section, I suggest reading the rationale behind the changes.

- Does the text in the License do what they intended it to do?
- Do you agree or disagree with what they intended?
- Are the possibly-bad side effects of the text which aren't mentioned in the rationale?

a diff between version 2 and the draft...

[NumbThumb]

...meight be more useful: have a look.

Re:Web services?

[sparkz]

I asked Stallman about this back in 2001; his reply is here:

ME: I modify GPL code - eg a CGI library - to suit my own needs for use on a publicly-available web server. This code is being run, by the general public, on my web server. Should I, in this case, make the code available? Under the GPL, must I?

RMS: The GPL does not require it. But is not very good for the community when people do this, so I am looking at a way that GPL 3 could require publication in this case.

The conversation and background of it is all documented at http://steve-parker.org/articles/lego/

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[jbolden]

And your copy may be totally irrelevent. See the history of X windows for a great example of how the MIT license totally failed.