Slashdot Mirror
Debian Team Discusses GPLv3
nanday writes to tell us that Newsforge (Owned by VA Software, just like Slashdot) is running an interesting look at the, recently reported on, GPLv3 by the Debian team. From the article: "Initially, Branden Robinson says, he was worried about GPL3. 'The amount of secrecy around the initial draft process had me very nervous,' he says. In addition, after the Debian consensus rejected the GNU Free Documentation License, he was concerned that GPL3 might become equally contentious in Debian. 'I'm glad to say that my fears are assuaged,' Robinson says. 'I was impressed with both the large and small changes. In a nutshell, I like it.'"
Nice to see that Debian is down with GPL3 -- I know that I personally am all for the new license. If Debian's cool with it, that should help a lot of people to accept it since Debian's well known as one of the most politically strict of all linux communities.
Looking at the changes, from what I understand, I don't think it should be much of a problem for the -real- free software people. We'll have to wait and see for the other guys -- but honestly, they can stick with GPL2 and thats ok too. Everyone points to the "or later version at your option", but that part can actually be removed from the GPL2 license IIRC.
From COPYING: "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
Thats form the current GPL2 that ships with the Linux kernel. So the user can specify strictly GPL2 if they choose too, or do not fully comply with GPL3.
Easy as pie.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Indeed I expect that the DRM part will be the big "Real kicker" specially when Linux kernel and other key software go to GPL3.
The Linux kernel has been GPLv2 only for a long time and it would be close to impossible to make the thousands of contributors relicense it. From what I've understood though, the FSF wants to relicense all software they have been assigned copyright to as GPLv3 only (you can still fork GPLv2 at that point though, and even create a competing GPLv2 only branch).
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The difference between Debian and other distributions is mainly in the "Fanatism" of sticking to the noble ideas. I have not followed Gentoo that much, but in general all other distros make choises that are "for good of the user" and include things that Debian rejects, but that make things easier for the user.
It's somewhat confusing indeed. That "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software" seems to only apply to "core components". With Debian it applies to all the 15490 packages.
In short, invarient clauses, DRM restrictions and a few other things. See http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statem ent.html
And even if it could, it doesn't neccesarily means that GPL v3 would be useful for the kernel. Let me quote a mail from Linus on the matter from a couple of hours ago:
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it.
I don't see anything in the draft that would require Linus to release his private signing keys. That would be insane if it were true, but it isn't.
The clarification on the licensing of the kernel (GPL v2 only and ever) is useful, though.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'd say that this is "relative": at the start of the COPYING file , I read: "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991". I'd say that it looks like Linus has modified the COPYING file on purpose just to _clarify_ the original intentions.
I don't agree. The way those restrictions are worded they shouldn't affect legitimate uses of the technology. They just prohibit pulling a Tivo - and Tivo, by the way, is proof this is necessary. They've done exactly what this will prohibit - they've stayed within the boundaries of GPL v.2 technically, while violating the intent completely. Their users can get the source, but they are prevented from using it in any meaningful way. The DRM section of v.3a, as I read it, is rather narrowly aimed at preventing that.
What does bother me in the drafts I've seen so far is the forgiveness clause, however. It looks like it could easily be abused by chronic violators, and I certainly hope that's given some more thought before the final version.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Corporations (and even some individuals) need strict control of their private data
I wonder how people plans to fix that with DRM. Once a DRM'ed document is loaded in word, you can jump the drm protection by....taking a screenshot? Oh well: The operative system may forbid to take screenshots of the windows that has DRM content (like mac os x does with DRm'ed videos I've been told). You may get your digital camera or even a vigilance camera could do it (you don't need to be 007 to do that).
But well, the operative system is also handling the data, so it has to be somewhere - what about a program that spies when you cut a piece of text?
Want to "secure your data"? Well, just use pgp to cypher it - hell there're guis for that - and store your private key in a usb key, nobody will be able to read your PGP'ed document. I don't see how DRM solves ANY problem.