Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian Team Discusses GPLv3

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the continued-good-feelings dept.

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.'"

5 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent by devphaeton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Go Debian! One of the last strongholds of The True Linux(tm).

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  2. Re:I don't like the GPL v3 draft by kebes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For example something as mundane as a web proxy log may be illegal depending on the context and jurisdiction.

    Not to mention that in some places, bad people will use that as a justification to shut down things they don't like. In a country that is trying to enforce censorship, they may deem that open-source software is violating its own license by allowing citizens to circumvent blockages. They will argue that this software is giving them the ability to "illegally invade privacy" (of whatever), and hence is illegal by its own license. Imagine how awful it would be if such a regime had a way to prevent free/open-source software from being used! The censorship would become that much worse.

    Sounds crazy perhaps, but twisting legal wordings to justify their actions is what some people do. That's why I'm always a little worried about the GPL being extended much beyond its original scope.

  3. Re:DRM by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What about patents? Think about a box like the NSLU2. Now, I don't know if Linksys holds any patents on it or not, but let's assume for the moment they held both software and hardware patents on it.

    Would they be able to continue to run a linux kernel on it? Can you run the linux kernel on a patented platform? Can you run patented software on a linux platform?

    If it turns out that you can still run patented software, what about kernel modules? Can you patent them or not?

    What if it turns out that you can't? Then what do you do about VMWARE? VMWARE can be used to run a Windows XP virtual machine, which for all we know is encrusted with thousands of patents.

    This whole "we enforce the following opinions about these uses of our software" thing is a bad idea, in general. Sure, they've made it plainly obvious that they don't want to be a party to building a TPM-based-machine. But what's next? No military uses? No "dual uses" (civilian and military)? "Sorry, can't write GPS software, it uses data that comes from a military owned satellite." "Can't put Word support in Open Office, it allows cross-platform usage of patented file formats." "Can't write an Asterisk plug-in, you might use that phone line to call Microsoft support."

    "Preamble

    The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users." [ emphasis mine ]

    I think they have to accept the good with the bad. All should mean "all". Freedom should mean "freedom".

    --
    John
  4. Re:I couldn't agree more by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But with DRM, what's to prevent you digitally securing the binaries and having a system on which only "trusted" binaries are allowed to run. The source is all but useless now, as anyone compiling it will need to get their binaries signed to run on Vista++ or OSXII.

    I bolded the real problem, which the GPL v3 does nothing to solve. All it does it say that the GPLed software cannot be an "effective technological protection measure", meaning it can't invoke the DMCA clauses that make circumventing such a thing illegal. That still won't let you get your modified binary signed by Microsoft to run on Vista++, so the source is still useless.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  5. Re:I don't like the GPL v3 draft by nuggz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering the free software definition I will form my response.
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

    1a. I don't think free software should force and/or encourage behaviours beyond that of ensuring the software is free.

    1b. What is legal and illegal is inconsistent both over time and location. Let the laws in place deal with that. Using a software licence and copyright law to somehow back up "real law" is at best redundant and at worst subjective and confusing. For a second example a police keystroke logger can be both legal and illegal depending on the specifics of the case.

    2. I agree that DRM is logically incompatible with the GPL, if you have all source to make a fully functional implementation you could easily hack around the DRM restrictions.

    We not only disagree with you, we think you're stupid for even mentioning it.

    Fortunately there are more open minded people than you involved in this debate.
    I think the GPL should adhere as directly and as simply as possible to the free software definition.