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

[Otter]

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".

I'd be curious to see what an objective lawyer has to say about the enforceability of that clause. Being an "effective technological protection measure" seems like a matter that can't be waived, any more than my signing a stipulation that I wasn't born in August affects my birthday.

Re:Other issues

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I read that a little differently. Because the license, picked by the original copyright holder, categorically states that it is not a technological protection measure, it can't be used in software that has the protections of the DMCA. This isn't so interesting.

However, when you remember that derivative works are similarly bound, you realise that the end effect is that any organisation who wishes to attack reverse-engineers with the DMCA is forbidden from building their copy protection on top of any GPL 3 software.

I don't think this is about opening things up, I think this is about giving companies an ultimatum - either give up on abusing the DMCA, or you can't have any of our source code.

Re:Other issues

[dgatwood]

On the issue of distribution, am I the only one bothered by the vagueness of this line:

The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Based on the source code of the program? Does inserting XML markup constitute a work based on the program, then? Because those tags were part of the program source code? This is really, really vague in a legally scary way.

I'm also a little bothered by the language that anything with a user interface must have an about box with copyright notice. What if the original didn't? Shouldn't it say that this information must be preserved, rather than saying that it must contain one? It's also a little troubling to think about how this could affect web services, since user interface isn't defined in a way so as to exclude it. This still doesn't explicitly clear up that issue.

Re:Other issues

[jmv]

I think I understand what they're trying to do with this. Without the clause, I could (theoretically) take a GPL program, add "pseudo-DRM" to it and then sue whoever removes that DRM from the (GPL) code using the DMCA. With the clause, I'm "forced" (if I want to distribute the program) to state that my stuff isn't an "effective technological protection measure" (which I assume is the phrasing of the DMCA). Would be much harder to defend in a court "Yes, I know we say in the license that it's not an effective technological protection measure, but we for the purpose of this lawsuit, we would like to change our mind...". Anyway, I'm not sure how strong a protection it offers, but I can't see that really hurting anyone.

Re:Other issues

[AuMatar]

Not quite. What they want to do is make it legal to try and decypt content GPLed code protects. By stating they are not an effective protection method, they are not covered by the DMCA. Therefor, you can try and remove the encryption from any content that the program produced (possibly any content it can read?). As for legality, I'd think its fairly strong- whoever releases it under the GPL license is voluntarily agreeing to this, and thus waiving the rights to sue under the DMCA (remember, breaking the DMCA is not a criminal act, but a civil tort).

Re:Other issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be curious to see what an objective lawyer has to say about the enforceability of that clause. Being an "effective technological protection measure" seems like a matter that can't be waived, any more than my signing a stipulation that I wasn't born in August affects my birthday.

This objective lawyer agrees with your initial impression. I searched to the section of the draft that expressed this issue, confident that because there were attorneys working on the draft, it couldn't possibly express this concept in the language that others have used in the comments. I was wrong:

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system
to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least
for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other
software capable of accessing the same data.

Statutory definitions cannot be changed by contract. Period. If you and I sign a contract that defines our upcoming battle royale on the street in front of my house as a "sporting event", we can still assuredly be arrested for assault and battery upon each other (at the very least). This language expresses an objective that is analogous to that hypothetical.

Imagine this:

1. Programmer A writes software that would be an effective technological measure but for this clause.
2. Programmer A distributes said software in combination with Copyright Owner B's work under license (as if this wasn't uncommon) as Work Z. For the argument's sake, let's assume that the copyrighted work is stored in separate data files that are distributed with the object code, but not the source code.
3. Programmer C uses said software to access Work Z without 'permission'.

The license extends between Programmer A and Programmer C. The license does nothing to bind Copyright Owner B. Yet the language from sec 1201 of the DMCA (the anticircumvention provisions) states that the person that must give permission is the copyright owner.

''(3) As used in this subsection--
''(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or
otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological
measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
and
''(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a
work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires
the application of information, or a process or a treatment,
with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access
to the work.

This means that if I represent Copyright Owner B, I can sue Programmer B and any other unauthorized person who accesses Work Z using Programmer A's source, or a derivative work created from that source, even if Programmer A cannot. If you believe that Programmer A's implied-by-license permission is sufficient to protect a third party from a lawsuit, think again. The third party is the one violating the copyright by accessing the work without authorization, and by presumably making at least a transient copy of the copyrighted work. Any lawyer will tell you that Programmer A cannot sell/distribute/convey rights greater than the rights that have been granted to him/her, just like Programmer A cannot sell Copyright Owner B's house to Programmer C.

Oops.

Re:Other issues

[Bogtha]

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Based on the source code of the program? Does inserting XML markup constitute a work based on the program, then? Because those tags were part of the program source code?

No. In some rare instances, programs actually output part of themselves as part of normal operation. I think Bison is the canonical example. This is different to mere string literals that form part of the output.

Current versions of the GPL have the same thing in them. It's frustrating because it seems intended to assure the reader that output isn't restricted - in fact it cannot be restricted by copyright - it would be like Microsoft holding the copyright to anything created with Word. Unfortunately, there's a minority of programs that function in this odd way, so they have to be mentioned as an exception.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

It's muddled right now. First it says that any DRM applied is not the type of DRM protected by the DMCA. Then it says that what it means is that permission is granted for circumvention. That's not the same thing, though I think it should have statements indicating that the licensee is agreeing that any DRM is ineligible for protection and that alternatively, permission to circumvent it is given.

Of course, this doesn't help enough, IMO. Let's say that someone released a movie under the GPL, and that it was on DVD and encrypted with CSS. Even though everyone has permission to circumvent it under the GPL, and the author is stating that CSS -- as used there -- is unprotected, this doesn't help. Third party movie studios can still claim that CSS is effective, and that a tool used to decrypt CSS, being just as able to circumvent the DRM on their movies as on the GPL'ed movie, is unlawful under the trafficking provisions of the statute. Thus, by using a commonplace DRM system, even though a person is releasing a work under the GPL, the DRM is still effective in keeping people from circumventing it even though they have a right to do so.

Better for the GPL to simply deny licensees the right to use DRM of any kind on relevant works.

Re:Other issues

[NutscrapeSucks]

Yes, because the law actually defines what "effective" means in this case. (ie, it's effective because you can't copy DVDs under the normal operation of the device.)

Which is why this GPL provision seems a little dubious because an "effective technological protection measure" would be descriptive of a programs function, independant of what the license said.

Re:Other issues

[pavon]

True, but consider this example. You want to join a club. Their membership contract states that members of this club cannot have been born in August. You can't sign the contract and then say that you are a member of the club, and therefore your birthday is no longer in August. The fact that your birthday is in August would prevent you from joining the club, and thus from recieving any of the advantages that membership brings.

This is the same thing. If the software you wrote is an "effective technological protection measure", then you cannot release it under the GPL. Furthermore, this implies that you cannot link against any other software released under the GPL.

If you were to attempt to use GPL software (say an encryption library) to create a DRM package, you would be in violation of the GPL. At that point, you would be forced to stop using the encryption library in your package, and could be liable for damages.

At least that is the way I read it on first glance.

Re:Other issues

[sepluv]

Note that that statement is immediately followed by:

distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.

IMO, that means, by distributing the work under GPLv3 you state that you give others permission to circumvent any effective technological measures (as well as stating that the work does not contain anyway).

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

I think you're misunderstanding me.

Let us say that Alice makes a DVD encrypted with CSS. Bob makes a different DVD encrypted with CSS, and which is licensed under the GPL. Carol makes and distributes copies of DeCSS. And Dave wants to use Bob's work pursuant to the GPL.

Dave can circumvent CSS in order to decrypt Bob's DVD, per the GPL. He can arguably even make a tool (such as DeCSS) in order to do so, provided that he keeps it to himself. But Carol cannot make or distribute versions of DeCSS because Alice will sue her (and win). This means that if Dave is unable to make his own DeCSS, the fact that he is legally allowed to circumvent CSS is moot because he cannot do so as a practical matter.

Therefore, I suggest that the GPL state that works covered by the GPL may not be DRM'ed at all. This doesn't extend to all the works Bob has made or will make, which is where you seem to have gotten confused. Bob would be free to make one DVD with CSS which is not under the GPL, and free to make another DVD under the GPL, but without CSS.

Since it's not safe to assume that Dave will be able to meaningfully take advantage of his rights under the GPL, vis-a-vis DRM'ed works, I think the appropriate thing to do is to make sure that the GPL and DRM are exclusive of one another.

This also means that if Dave makes his own version of Bob's DVD, he could not add DRM to it (which might block Bob as well as other users).

Fundamentally, I think that allowing GPL'ed works to be DRM'ed is contrary to the goals of the GPL.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

And I'm saying that if you have GPL'ed DRM'ed software, then it might as well not be GPL'ed because people who use the same DRM and not the GPL will sue people who take advantage of their rights under the GPL.

It's better to avoid the problem and ensure that GPL'ed software is honestly free by not allowing it to be DRM'ed at all.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

Nah, it's basically an admission. I don't think it's dubious in that respect, since non-effectiveness will be treated as a fact from the get-go.

My concern is that I don't think this part of the GPL will actually work. I think it will backfire in that people can take GPL'ed software, apply DRM to it (or their modifications of it) and effectively prevent anyone from making future modifications to it despite the fact that it is GPL'ed.

Re:Other issues

[NutscrapeSucks]

I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical /. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.

Better would have been "You agree to waive enforcement of your rights to use this software as an effective technological protection measure".

I do agree this does nothing against trusted-boot DRM systems, like Tivo, where the enforcement is entirely outside the GPL software.

Re:Other issues

[Bombcar]

"Please note that since source code will be available for any GPL "technological protection measure", it will be very much ineffective."

Not necessarily.

GNU Privacy Guard source is available but you'd have a hell of a time decrypting a message without the private key and passphrase. Truly usable DRM (i.e, the best of the evilest) would be perfectly save if the source is public. The keys would be the important thing. Then all you need is hardware that is Trusted(TM).

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical /. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.

It's a little different.

Parties in a suit can stipulate as to various facts. This means that they agree, and therefore the court doesn't have to look into that fact. For example, if you sell me a car, and I sue over some defect that causes me injury, we might stipulate that some parts of the car are not involved, or are in their original condition. The case would then be restricted to just those areas that we are in disagreement over.

This would work the same way. A copyright holder can't sue for circumvention unless they claim that there is an effective TPM. If they've already stipulated that there isn't, it shuts them down right there.

It's not really equivalent to your analogy, since there's no requirement that works are encumbered with DRM or that it is effective. It's not like a regulation for safety purposes or something where there is an interest in protecting customers from themselves (if they agreed that they wanted to buy an unsafe car).

In any event, I'm sticking by my guns in that I think that the GPL should be totally exclusive of DRM. They're not reconcilable, and frankly, the latter should be wiped out. There is not a middle ground or acceptable compromise, IMO.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm afraid you're incorrect.

As an example, here is 17 USC 1201(a)(2):

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Since the the statute uses the word 'or,' a product that satisfies any one criterion is unlawful to traffic in; satisfaction of all three criteria is not required.

The main problem is (a)(2)(B). Just because there are lawful uses to which a circumvention product may be put (such as in conjunction with a GPL'ed work or public domain works) that still tends to leave it with a limited commercially significant use. The Reimerdes court considered whether DeCSS could be lawful to traffic in, given that it could be used not only unlawfully to circumvent DRM for copyrighted movies, but also lawfully to circumvent DRM for public domain movies. Nevertheless, this was not a significant enough use, and DeCSS was not saved.

Therefore, Alice can sue Carol successfully, because there are a lot of Alices, and few Bobs.

Re:Other issues

[sp3tt]

" What both of you are saying is what I wrote in the first place!"

Sue them for copyright infringement.

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:Other issues

[Alsee]

Is the GPL only intended for US?

No.

What about other countries with different or similar laws?

Every country with a DMCA-type law is very closely modeled on the DMCA and works about the same and uses the same terms. For example the EUCD (EU Copyright Directive) imposes DMCA-like laws on all EU countries and imposes the exact same "effective techincal protection measure" term. The USA-Australian "Free-Trade" treaty imposed the same DMCA-like law withe the exact same "effective techincal protection measure" term onto Australia. And the US-pushed Central American Free Trade Agreement seeks to impose the same DMCA-like laws with the exact same "effective techincal protection measure" term onto all of the countries of Central and South America.

So the GPL is being designed in a proper internal manner. Sure there are some countries where the "effective techincal protection measure" clause is unneeded, but there are a large number of DMCA countries and the clause fits all of them perfectly.

-

I'll stick with the MIT license.

[CyricZ]

I think I will continue to stick with the MIT license. It has plain, easy to comprehend terms. It's concise.

I appreciate the effort the FSF is making, but things may be getting out of hand. I know of many developers who feel the same as I do. They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities. Thankfully, licenses like the BSD license and the MIT license work wonderfully well for us.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[ZorbaTHut]

Some people don't want their code to be used in any situation. They want to guarantee that anyone trying to profit off their code will basically have to contribute in one way or another - the code can't just be copied and closed.

Personally I use both GPL and BSD for different projects, but saying "the GPL is too complex and that's why people should use BSD/MIT" really ignores the reason why many people use the GPL in the first place. I agree that we could use a simpler version of the GPL - but BSD isn't it.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[ibullard]

It's not stealing when you give it away. Some people don't mind giving their work away and the GPL isn't applicable for ALL development.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[AuMatar]

"They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities. "

And thats why they should use the GPL- to make sure it *remains* free, and that changes and additions to it remain free. BSD and MIT may be concise, but it doesn't make this promise. If you're going with them, you may as well just forget the license and go public domain.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[ibullard]

Yeah, BSD licenses sure have killed a lot of projects.
That's just five minutes of searching for BSD licensed projects, I didn't look for MIT licensed projects.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[hey!]

They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities.

Well, choosing to ignore the complexities of the legal system doesn't guarantee they ignore you. For example the MIT license has no disclaimer of warranty. Nor does it require the licensee to waive any potential claim of damages. In theory, somebody could take your software, modify it in a way that introduces bugs, then disappear, leaving downstream licensees with your name as the only starting point for a lawsuit.

It doesn't matter that it's not your fault. Unless you're like MIT with a substantial legal staff to scare them off, it'll be too bad for you. The BSD license would be a much better choice.

Like software, licenses should be as simple as they need to be to accomplish what you need them to do, but no simpler.

The MIT license ensures you get credit. Period.

The BSD license ensures you get credit, and that nobody claims that you endorse their derivative products, and that everybody uses the software on the condition of releasing you from legal responsibility for damages.

GPL ensures you get credit, that people release you from legal responsibility for damages, and that every downstream recipient gets as many rights as you granted your immediate licensees.

It's too bad that you have to understand any kind of legaleese to be a programmer, but that's life. Licenses are just the start of it. You have to understand a bit about copyrights, patents and trademarks too. If you work with source material that is not public domain, you probably need to have some understanding of contracts. We're not talking law school level stuff, but at least an informed layman's understanding.

If you don't like this, sticking your head in the sand is not a viable solution.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[AuMatar]

ANd thats the problem with the BSD and MIT license- that they *don't* require changes to remain free. As such, they garuntee that those with money and resources will eventually throw enough money at the probem to obliterate the free versions, by taking all the useful stuff from them.

And yes, I know BSD and MIT is not public domain. But since you want to go BSD or MIT, why not just make it public domain anyway? All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant? If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[RibRdb]

If people don't want their code used in any situation, perhaps they should consider the Death and Repudiation License.
http://search.cpan.org/src/AUTRIJUS/YAML-Syck-0.04 /COPYING

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[Cal Paterson]

You might be interested to note:

The FSF is dedicated to allowing people to create code that everyone is free to use, for any reason (save the restriction of freedom of others). This code must remain free for everyone in the future to benefit from. This is why is it Free Software, and not simply Open Source. The FSF percieve the ability to take BSD source and use it in closed-source software as a disadvantage of the BSD/MIT licences.

That said, the BSD/MIT licences do have advantages in some contexts. Bittorrent, OpenDocument and Ogg Vorbis are examples of things that are legal for anyone to include in their software, which allows everyone, even people who don't use Free Software to be able to interchange infomation, and this improves interoperability. (Even through Bram Cohen has regrettably since changed to a licence that is no longer DFSG-free). The FSF feel that releasing their source code into the public domain (or under BSD) would directly benefit large companies who have an interest in harming the software community's progress.

And I believe that the Windows iptables stuff was a lift of the BSD iptables, hence the fuck in the arse.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[Arandir]

But it will ALWAYS remain free under a MIT or BSD license! The idea that it can somehow be made non-free is a malicious myth started by the FSF. Someone can make *their* copy unfree, but they cannot make *my* copy unfree. No matter what Microsoft does, my copy of FreeBSD will ALWAYS be free.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[hao2lian]

"All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant?"
How is attribution arrogant? It's no less arrogant than, say, donating non-anonymously to a charity. For somebody who's spent hours to years working on something they've released to the public domain, I certainly wouldn't mind attributing them in my derivative work. Would restrictions like derivative work licensing or ability to use DRM be more arrogant?

"If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it."
Not everybody values code freedom as highly, but that doesn't mean that makes them bad people or that makes them arrogant to want attribution or that makes them uncaring about their work.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter that it's not your fault. Unless you're like MIT with a substantial legal staff to scare them off, it'll be too bad for you. The BSD license would be a much better choice.

The MIT license protects against that. See:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT

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.

it's difficult to read.

[skynare]

why is it so difficult to read?

Re:it's difficult to read.

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it so difficult to read?

I don't know but I see that you also find it difficult to start sentences with a capital letter. That's our first clue.

Re:it's difficult to read.

[conradp]

By now you're redefining "ideologism" as "opinion" but there's a reason why they're not synonyms. "I think I might give some money to this beggar" is an opinion. "Let's kill the bloody people who have the nerve to oh gosh - actually WORK - and steal all their money and waste it on lowlife" is an ideology. The OpenBSD license is a bit like the first statement. GNU v3 is more like the second...

Actually neither of those statements sounds like an opinion or an ideology. If you change them from "I think I might" and "Let's" to "People should" then both sound like ideologies.

I think BSD and GPL both share almost the same ideology, "software should be free", but with different implementation paths. BSD says "software should be free, so I'm giving mine away." GPL says "software should be free, so I'm giving mine away, and ensuring that anyone who takes it also gives their software away."

The BSD license is like saying "food should be free" and then setting up one free food stand where folks can take all the food they want. I believe that it's very noble, admirable, and charitable to be sure. But it's unlikely to change the world. Rather it's most likely that a bunch of fat rich people will pull up with trucks, take all the food they can carry, and then go to the nearest market and resell it all.

How much of this...

[krewemaynard]

...will hold up legally, and how much of it is just hot air and rants?

"DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden." Sounds good and noble, but will it work?

Re:How much of this...

[Renegade Lisp]

I like the anti-DRM idea very much. From the draft:

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.

To me, that sounds like a breathtakingly simple way to undermine the whole purpose of the DMCA and DRM, simply by saying: Software under this license can never be a protection device that people are not allowed to circumvent. Almost as simple and elegant as the idea of copyleft itself. I'm very impressed.

Re:How much of this...

[JanneM]

To me, that sounds like a breathtakingly simple way to undermine the whole purpose of the DMCA and DRM, simply by saying: Software under this license can never be a protection device that people are not allowed to circumvent. Almost as simple and elegant as the idea of copyleft itself. I'm very impressed.

I'm not. That would mean that any cryptographic software could never be GPL licensed. You won't have a Free implementation of the protocol used for you to connect securely to your bank, since it is illegal in many places to intercept and decrypt such privileged communications.

Re:How much of this...

[Spy Hunter]

Note that they are not forbidding GPL DRM software. Instead they are forbidding you from suing people who try to break your DRM. If your DRM actually works (i.e. is not breakable), then you should have no problem with this. However, we all know that actual working DRM is technically infeasible. If you disagree with this clause of the GPL you are admitting that DRM is impotent without constant police-state enforcement. Basically, this change to the GPL exposes DRM as the fraud it has always been.

Re:How much of this...

[Hewligan]

Of course you can still write crypto software under GPL v3. That clause just means that the security measures you've created have no legal protection from circumvention.

In other words, you could write ssh under GPL v3, but it would be legal to crack it. Not necessarily possible, just legal.

Re:How much of this...

[JanneM]

In other words, you could write ssh under GPL v3, but it would be legal to crack it. Not necessarily possible, just legal.

Nope. In most countries at least, law trumps contract. What would happen is that the license is invalidated, and the software in no longer free.

Argh, bad text layout...

[Al Dimond]

Gah... why couldn't there be a web page that didn't have BR tags at the 80-character mark every time. This is like reading e-mail in the 90s! (Actually this looks like a plone-based site so it's probably serving up auto-generated *ml from a text file... which is no excuse, really. If vim can fix up stuff like that then plone could too.)

Re:Argh, bad text layout...

[Harik]

Because it's designed to be read in a text terminal, with source code
which is also generally (gasp) 80 columns.

I know some of you new Eclipse/Visual Studio DOT NET guys love 30000
character lines, and don't get me started on perl, but for the projects
I work on having long lines is a drawback. And has email REALLY improved
since the mid 90s? I force HTML to downconvert to text and strip all the
bullshit markup before it hits my inbox. No blinky pictures, no flash
graphics, no webbugs, no <FONT SIZE +5000><FONT COLOR=BLOOD RED>
<BOLD><UNDERLINE><ITALIC><BLINK><MARQUEE> tags.

Those of us with functioning braincells and an attention span greater then
a gnat miss the email of the 90s.

Cut the "any later version" option

[Bromskloss]

What keeps me from using the GPL is the "any later version" option. How do I know that GPL version 17 wont give every user of my software a right to come by my house for a free lunch? Or a car. You know, unless most significant software, everything in this world isn't free as in lunch. That holds for example for most lunches.

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.

From this...

[IAAP]

From the last paragraph section 1: As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface, the implementation of which requires no patent license not already generally available for software under this License.

I'm reading this as (bold area): if I compile my code with GCC and link with a GNU library, my code will not fall under the GNU license unlese I sat it does.

Because it's a legal document.

[pavon]

The same reason that code is hard to read by non-programmers, or medical papers are hard to read by people without medical training. The law, like any field, needs precise language to communicate. Many words have special legal meanings that are subtly different from common speech (or not so subtle if language has diverged over time). This is necisarry for the same reason that you can't use plain english to write code - plain english leaves to much open for interpretation. When you write legal documents, you want the judge interpreting your document, should it ever go to court, to read it the way you intended it to be read. The best way to do this is to use the accepted legal terminology.

Re:Because it's a legal document.

[slux]

That may well be the case but I see it very problematic that normal citizens are unable to understand what exactly the laws their government imposes on them are saying. Or that they are forced to accept legal agreements written in the same language every day.

Legalese should really strive to be readable and understandable to the point by the average person. If indeed what you are saying is true and there is really no way to state these things in a clear and logical way then some kind of measures should be taken to ensure that everyone can get the help they need in interpreting the arcane mumblings of the law.

Re:Because it's a legal document.

[Sloppy]

I know how you feel. Not everyone is expected or required to be able to read a computer program or medical paper. But everyone is expected and required to obey the law.

TiVo

[metamatic]

Well, it'll stop those fsckers at TiVo from using Linux in hardware devices that are locked down so you can't read the data or modify the software without serious hardware hacking.

Re:TiVo

[phliar]

The Linux kernel is under GPL v2. There is no "automatic upgrade" of future kernel versions to GPL v3. Even if there were, versions already released are unaffected. Once you have a copy of the kernel under GPL v2, that code's status can never be changed. Once something is released under a certain license, ceteris paribus that copy remains under it.

Incomprehensible

[undeadly]

The new GPL is, well, "wordy", bit not all that clear. And to be quite frank, I understand that I don't understand it.

The new GPL have the following:

This License gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the
Program, provided you do not bring suit for patent infringement against
anyone for making, using or distributing their own works based on the
Program.

So patent law mixed with how I use the software, and privately at that. Can I use GPLv3 software in a company (it's not private, usually)? Can I modify it, but not distribute it outside the company? If I don't do this privately, but as a "corporate" person, then it's not private, so I can do what I want (of course not). This is just in the beginning of the new license, and it goes on and on and on and on etc.

Really, why not make a license that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand?

Re:Incomprehensible

[A Bookworm]

Sorry to tell you this, but you answered your last question in the preceding paragraph.

While IANAL, I believe that the word, "privately" is different in legalese from how you're using it. A company can be "private" or "public" depending on whether or not it trades shares publicly. Or, perhaps you're trying to say that your actions within a company aren't "private" because they're not done by one individual for and by themselves. Yet a "private" action can be performed by a company by itself and for itself. It can also be done by an employee of the company for the company. In that regard it is still "privately" done.

This is why there's all the "legalese" in the GPL3. In order to make it usable in the courts it needs to be written in a dialect that will be interpreted the same way by the writer and any legal reader (another lawyer or judge).

If you're finding the license difficult to understand, you have at least a couple of options:
1) Get a lawyer's professional explanation and opinion (of course, this will cost money).
2) Go check out the website and choose what legal opinions you will trust. There's plenty of them available.

That's the preamble

[vlad_petric]

*NOT* terms and conditions. This is the style of GNU licenses - preamble describing intent, but not legally binding, then the legally-binding terms .

Re:No more GPG encryption

[Josh Triplett]

No; this draft includes specific language handling that case: "a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it." In other words, this only covers cases where you don't have the key, such as devices which check signatures on their firmware binaries.

Re:The slippery slope begins...

[Bogtha]

No, this draft doesn't limit use in any way. The restrictions are when you want to distribute copies or use the software in derivative works. I quote from the draft:

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program.

Does anyone have any screenshots?

[stonedyak]

I can't wait to try it out! But are there any binaries to download? I can only seem to find the source code, and I don't have a compiler for Lawyer++.

Web services?

[Just Some Guy]

There's been much debate for and against allowing people to "publish" modified GPLed web applications without releasing the source. For example, phpBB is released under the GPL, and some believe that you should be required to make any changes to it available to your site visitors.

I didn't see any wording in the draft that addresses this issue either way; every time I thought I did, I found the same or similar wording in version 2. So, is it in there? Will it affect how we publish web applications?

Re:Web services?

[Just Some Guy]

So if a web application has such functionality, it can be released under a license that requires that functionality be kept, and that license would still be compatible with the GPL.

Crud. I think you're right. The FSF seems to have this fascination with "invariant sections", even though the rest of the planet thinks they are fundamentally non-Free.

If this draft is accepted, it looks like I'll be using GPLv2 (and v2 only) from now on. This whole thing reeks of second-system effect and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

Re:Web services?

[bitmason]

I asked Eben Moglen basically this question at the conference today. It isn't GPLv3's intention to treat software delivered as a hosted service as "propagating" or "distributing" the software. (If the service is delivered as a hardware/software bundle, that's something different, but a website hosting a database (or CRM application) isn't considered to be distributing the software.

Re:Web services?

[_xeno_]

I actually went to the GPLv3 launch, where they went over the license and what the intention of each of the clauses were. (And almost fell asleep, but...)

In order to make the license more "compatible" with other licenses, they added Section 7. Section 7 is a set of additional restrictions that developers may add to the license to ensure they maintain compatibility with other licenses. Section 7d essentially says that you may, optionally, implement a feature that causes a program to distribute its own source code to the end-user. If you decide to do so, you can add a requirement that the feature not be removed. This is optional - the default GPLv3 doesn't include this.

If this draft is accepted, it looks like I'll be using GPLv2 (and v2 only) from now on.

The GPLv3 is still a draft - if you have issues with the license, comment on it! Join the process! The GPLv3 is an open source process (free process?) in and of itself. This is just the first draft, if you have problems with it, get involved and try to get them worked out.

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:Web services?

[jamienk]

Usually the GPL doesn't allow you to mix in code that is MORE restrictive than the GPL. You can mix in code that is LESS restrictive (e.g., code in the public domain, or code under a BSD license). BUT this draft of the GPL version 3 says that there are a few exceptions where you CAN mix in code that has certain enumerated restrictions beyond the GPL. One of these ALLOWED RESTRICTIONS is if a license requires that code has a way for users of that code to "immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding Source Code" (section 7d).

I imagine that this could apply to web services -- I could release my big PHP app under the GPL license with the added restriction that "if you want to distribute or modify my web app, you have to have some sort of link to the source code, or else you can't modify the part of the program that provides that link." This is allowed now, I can have any reasonable terms in my license that I want (my license is the only thing that lets you distribute or modify my code), but under versions of the GPL prior to 3, my code wouldn't be COMPATABLE with GPL code; you couldn't COMBINE my code with your GPL code.

If you do release your code under v3 of the GPL, then people can mix your code with my "GPL plus link to source"-licensed code. If you release your code under version 2 only, my code can't be mixed with yours.

I think this is a good solution to the "problem" of web services. Remember, the problem was that people can take my GPL'ed code, change it, and run it over the Internet and not release their changes back to the community. In some ways this goes against the spirit that the codes' authors may have felt -- they wanted changes to be "fed back" into the community. On the other hand it could be argued that, by adding a new restriction to my code that goes beyond the GPL's core "share back" -- I'm now in effect saying "this program MUST have this functionality" -- I'm limiting a freedom that the GPL wants to protect -- the freedom to modify the code.

I think section 7d is a brilliant compromise: allow such code to be mixed with GPL'ed code. This keeps the GPL pure, but opens the door to code that isn't philosophically objectionable.

Re:Web services?

[mysidia]

It also potentially opens the door a little wider towarsd OSS license proliferation. At this rate: I fear there will ultimately be just as many OSS licenses as major OSS software projects.

Re:No more GPG encryption

[AuMatar]

YOu're misreading the legalese. When it says that any GPLed program is not an effective DRM app, it means that by hacking around content protected by a GPL application, you are not breaking the DMCA. Because the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent a protection device, but the GPLed app is not legally a protection device, as per the GPL. It doesn't mean that you can't use encryption, but that its not illegal to reverse engineer an encryption system it uses.

NOW it's political?!?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Did you see any earlier versions of this thing? btw political is good.

Relicense?

[Julian Morrison]

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

For example, should Linux become GPL3'd?

Discuss...

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 Karl Popper

[criscooil]

This reminds me of something similar which has been explored in depth by Karl Popper, namely the problem of how does a free society protect itself from people who would use that freedom to change the society so that its no longer free. For example how does a democracy prevent a party from getting elected which would end the democracy? I cant give you a 25c summary, because it is a complicated subject, and I cant remember all of it anyway (its been years). However, if you're interested, I highly recommend reading Popper. His stuff is easy to read, and he deserves to be more widely known.

Re:great; now GPL software is prohibited on Window

[QuantumG]

Except, ya know, that the license then goes on to say

As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need
not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is
normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major
essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to
produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it,
and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves
only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler
or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface,
the implementation of which requires no patent license not already
generally available for software under this License.

The ISSUES are incomprehensible

[jgardn]

I'd like to point out that in a more perfect world, we wouldn't need the GPL v3. What has happened is that the world has become tremendously more complicated since v2. The v3 helps to address some of those issues.

Let's look at some of the issues that make licensing your software more difficult to do properly.

PATENTS. Software patents have gotten out of control. At the time of v2, there was some concern about patents, but now we have had a direct attack on the GPL from the angle of patents trump copyright. What v3 does is spell out what patents mean and how companies can use patents and GPL in peace. It says that you can't distribute software under the GPL if you own a patent that doesn't allow others to distribute the same software. You have to license that patent to allow distribution by others. Isn't this what we want? This is one technical and hairy issue that most people never think about, but needs to be thought about.

DRM. The DRM issue is another viper's nest. What happens if Sony releases software under the GPL to play movies, and then try to protect the movies under DRM legislation? Think especially if Sony takes a GPL software out in the wild, and then adds their own things to it, and then to satisfy the GPL they try to distribute it under the GPL. Are they doing the right thing, even if it is legal? Of course not. If you build or work on a data interpretation program and then license it under the GPL, you can't ask people not to try to understand how your program works or write another program to deal with the same software. The v3 license is explicit about this.

BSD license folks like to pick on the GPL because it is getting so complicated. They forget that the BSD license has its own problems. The GPL is trying to solve those problems. If you don't understand what the problems with the BSD license are, you can't understand what the GPL is intended to do, nor can you be convinced to use it.

Hint about BSD's problems: MS Windows has a good portion of BSD code in the Windows kernel. They spend a great deal of time modifying and adapting the code and then turning around and selling it, without allowing people the same rights they had. I have a co-worker whose job was to work with this code. The folks who wrote the original code get NOTHING in return, except a by-line in the Windows documentation.

Imagine if I took the Linux Kernel, made it better, then turned around and started selling it for profit, without allowing people to see the changes, nor giving them an opportunity to do the same. The GPL forbids this, and it has been a perfect solution up 'til now. The FSF is trying to predict future "attack vectors" and closing them off before they can become a problem, perhaps through future legislation or actions.

Re:The ISSUES are incomprehensible

[ivoras]

Oh not again about the "BSD is bad because MS can steal BSD-licensed code" :((

Here it is again: THAT'S PRECISELY THE POINT! Don't you think people who put their code under the BSD license know it?

The license is liberal because:

• maybe the software is made on an academic institution and it wouldn't be fair to restrict it (as the GPL does)
• maybe the author writes the software for fame not for fortune (mostly closely tied with previous point - academics tend to make software that will increase their academic status [hint: BSD unix] and maybe land them consultant jobs)
• maybe the author is a really good guy
• maybe the author is really optimistic and thinks that if the companies can use quality BSD-licensed code they wouldn't have to develop their own crappy versions (hint: MS)
• ...

Re:The slippery slope begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

> So "freedom for users" has now been redefined to "freedom for users, except for one group of users that we don't like". I'm curious to see who the second group is going to be...

That "one group" you're talking about are not those who use the software, but those who redistribute it or modifications to it. And they only freedom they lose is that of taking away freedom of those who merely use the software.

I, for one, will not miss my freedom to enslave if it is lost.

Captcha: unrest

Re:No more GPG encryption

[miyako]

This just kind of popped into my head- but I wonder. If GPG is not considered an "effective protection devise" or whatever the legalease is- could a company who was using GPG to protect customer information or some such be sued for failing to provide "adequate" protection of customer information.

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?

The R in DRM?

[bzipitidoo]

GPLv3 is calling DRM Digital Restrictions Management. A good description, but isn't the term actually Digital Rights Management? Ought to state both terms. Would hate to lose a court case on a technicality based on imprecise terminology. I thought renaming it Restrictions was a clever joke, and we don't want the GPL to look like a joke. Gives opponents a wedge they can use to try to discredit the whole thing.

Re:The R in DRM?

[sepluv]

They don't use that term in the (normative) text of the license, just as a heading.

Anyway the term intentionally (by it's authors) has no definite semantics (so really couldn't appear in a legal document without definition), and the FSF's expansion of the acronym more accurately describes what the term is usually used to refer to.

Re:No more GPG encryption

[mce]

The problem with that is that the app "not being an effective DRM app" is specifically tuned to target the US DMCA, wheras the GPL has to survive internationally. Other countries, other definitions, so: 1) Who says that "not being an effective DRM app" is any good at defeating the local DMCA equivalent of country X? and 2) Who says that it isn't in conflict with national law regarding what consititutes DRM in country Y?

Re:FULL TEXT

[HeroreV]

<script type="text/javascript">
  if( article.textContent.length > 3*librariesOfCongress )
  {
    var myPost = document.getPostByUser('herorev');
    myPost.appendChild( document.createTextNode('too long...') );
  }
</script>

too long...

a diff between version 2 and the draft...

[NumbThumb]

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

not an 'or later version' clause

[weierstrass]

it's just that lots of software is licensed as gpl2 or any later version 'at your option'. it's not a fixed part of gpl2.
for instance the linux kernel is licensed only under gpl2.

As a commercial developer, I'm always unsure....

[CFD339]

...about downloading and trying any GPL library because ultimately I've found too many unclear explanations on what I can and cannot do with it related to code I make money on. In some cases, I'd like to pay for the right to use it commercially but can't even figure out who to write the check to and for how much.

I wish authors releasing good libraries under GPL would also assume that is OK to make money with it too. Just spell out the terms and conditions for us commercial types too. Not all of what I do is commercial of course, some is free (as in beer) in which case GPL tends to be fine.

I hate being the kind of person who uses other people's contributions but can't contribute back all the time. I hope the new license clears some of this up for me.

Re:No more GPG encryption

[AuMatar]

DMCA is a civil tort, not a criminal law. By using the GPL, they would voluntarily give up their right to sue by declaring they aren't a protection device. Its not a matter of trumping in this case.

We'd be better off!

[CyricZ]

We'd all be better off if Microsoft took even more code from open source projects. Why is that? Because it could very well increase the quality of their products.

How does that directly affect you, you may ask? Well, first of all it may reduce the number of Windows-based PCs that can be compromised, and used to send the spam that clogs up your mail servers or your inbox.

Second of all, it may lead to the adoptation of open source developed software and open standards. This allows for better interoperability between Windows and non-Windows systems. For those of us running massive heterogenous networks, anything that eases interaction between different systems is a blessing.

On the web services loophole

[bitspotter]

Interesting that in the rationale, they decided against taking action to close the web services/remote execution loophole.

It's doubly interesting that, while they made some changes to combat DRM, they said nothing at all about Trusted/Treacherous Computing, which is the foundational layer enabling most modern DRM.

I think that's good, because I believe you can use the latter to combat the former, just by leveraging existing terms in GPLv2, combined with the public's natural interest in retaining privacy.

Re:On the web services loophole

[VENONA]

Well, I guess I'm not bothered by a lack of consistency this evening. Above, I replied to a post by YesIAmAScript that I'd take Digital Restrictions Management over Digital Rights Management, as a definition of DRM, and the devil take prior usage.

Now I'm going to defend prior usage, and go with Trusted Computing over Treacherous Computing. Thanks for saying a bit in it's defense. I've just spent several hours last week having to defend it from some people who bought into a whole lot of FUD. Frustrating, but either that, or the project wouldn't have gotten off the ground...

Then you pop this short post in, and I get a chance for a public FUD-fighting post. Which begins here.

Trusted Computing has been around a lot longer than it's been used as an enabler for DRM, and picked up the Treacherous Computing moniker. It goes well back into the history of government computing, for example. Anyone can probably Google up many OS design articles related to the size of TCBs (Trusted Computing Bases) being too large, etc.

As I'm sure you're aware (but not nearly enough other people are), TC can have some righteous non-government uses. Employers might use it to make sure that home workers connecting by VPN are running a sane environment, etc. That's getting to be an essential technique in protecting some networks. I don't see anything wrong with it, if it's company gear you're using. And there are tons of other uses.

There are some dangers, like there is in using many powerful tools. The trick will be to prevent MS (or other coporations or consortia, but I trust MS the least, given their legal history) from doing some enormous power grab through Palladium-like initiatives. But it's too useful to go away. TPM (Trusted Platform Module) drivers have been in Linux since the 2.6.12 kernel, and more are in development.

There's tons of FUD being propagated about Trusted Computing, such as Cory Doctorow confusing TC and DRM (I get a lot of this) on BoingBoing at http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_ trusted.html

But there's some good info as well. There's a good corbet article and wide-ranging discussion at http://lwn.net/Articles/144681

I would urge anyone who isn't familiar with Trusted Computing to spend some quality time with your search engine of choice. TC has important implications, only one of which is as possible DRM enabler.

just to elaborate on that point

[penguin-collective]

It's too bad that you have to understand any kind of legaleese to be a programmer, but that's life.

I think programmers aren't the ones to complain about obscure notation and languages, given that we have invented many more of them than lawyers ever have in the history of the world.

GPL and linking

[mewphobia]

Does someone mind explaining to me the deal with GPL and linking? AFAIK, you can only link GPL'd programs to GPL'd programs.

But what is the inherent difference between linking and communicating with a program in another manner?

If my code communicates with a GPL program via tcp/ip, or via function calls the only logical difference i can see is speed?

It's a EULA

[cyberformer]

The Affero license has been "testing" the Web Services clause for a while.

The problem for Free Software purists is that it's a EULA: It restricts use, not just copying. That seems to contradict the "not a contract" part of the GPL, and probably can't be enforced in many jurisidctions (although it is a way of fighting back against UCITA or similar laws / court decisions that make EULAs binding).

Re:As a commercial developer, I'm always unsure...

[moranar]

I wish authors releasing good libraries under GPL would also assume that is OK to make money with it too.

You can _always_ make money with GPL programs. Or at least, you can legally try. You could take e.g. gimp, and sell it, provided you comply with the gpl terms: that anyone can take the source code you're distributing and modify it, and sell it themselves if they wish. The thing is, if you do this precise kind of stuff, you might have negative publicity. It is nevertheless your right under the GPL.

More clarifications at the FSF's GPL FAQ's page.

Friendly explanations are far more becoming.

[jbn-o]

Lots of lawyers are wrong in their legal views and some of them even lose cases. Lots of basketball players who can perform slam dunks sometimes miss the basket and sometimes lose games. Being an expert doesn't mean you're above being questioned. But you apparently don't even like for people to question whether you're really a lawyer, so you post anonymously, giving us no information to determine if you're actually a lawyer as you claim to be.

Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF, is also a lawyer who has said repeatedly that "Licenses are not contracts". Perhaps you would take the matter up with him instead. After reading his essays and listening to his talks, I find him to be a far more patient and informative speaker than you appear to be. Then again, he might object to some anonymous nobody claiming to be a lawyer arguing a point with him that he's rehashed so many times.

Pamela Jones, a journalist with a paralegal background who runs Groklaw, has gone on record saying that "The GPL is a license, not a contract" in which she cites Moglen's essay and expands on it a bit. Perhaps you'd rather discuss the matter with her, since she too might be more on your level of expertise.

But I think it's telling that instead of patiently explaining the difference between the terms 'license' and 'contract' you instead chose to take a needlessly confrontational and remarkably uninformative route to point out that most non-lawyers don't understand the terms. It's unfortunate that the /. moderators don't seem to penalize such posts in an attempt to raise the level of discourse here.