Slashdot Mirror
GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released
thppft! writes "The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License. Along with the text for the licenses , the GPLv3 website also includes an introduction by Eben Moglen along with markup changes to the rationale and the GPL itself."
After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:
Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:
And two very useful docs:
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released"
Well considering the number that can't get the original right. This discussion should be interesting.
In the future, please warn when linking to audio files.
What, did they fix all the bugs in the previous version already?
One of the things that was discussed regarding the GPL v3 was adding a provision that made web services considered distribution that would require eleasing the source as per the GPL (as opposed to applications which are used internally but not distributed, where there is no source code distribution requirement). If they do choose to include such a provision, it could stifle the development of new and innovative web applications as the financial incentive for development would be removed.
Microsoft is already waging a scare campaign comparing the source distribution clause of the GPL to a virus. Why should the open source community give tbem more ammunition to attack the GPL while limiting the use of GPL code in web applications?
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
If you are looking for more that fsfeurope's plain text diff, FSF is providing a strikethrough version of this second Draft, that highlights all the changed text from Draft 1, in LaTex, Postscript, and PDF
I would suggest, "The blind lecturing the sighted on how to properly see."
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Discussion Draft 2 of Version 3, 27 July 2006
THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
Copyright © 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
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. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other program whose authors commit to using it. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make requirements that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be associated erroneously with the original version.
Some computers are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them. This is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom to change the software. Therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will not be restricted in this way.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in places where they do, we wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0. Definitions.
In this License, each licensee is addressed as "you," while "the Program" refers to any work of authorship licensed under this License. A "modified" work includes, without limitation, versions in which material has been translated or added. A work "based on" another work means any modified version, formation of which requires permission under applicable copyright law. A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires permission under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer, or making modifications that you do not share. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enab
The only GPL code that has any real traction in the enterprise is Linux. And they've already stated that they're perfectly happy with version 2 of the GPL.
Looking through the new draft, they've made major improvements to the wording of things, which is good because in the first version the prose was thicker than molasses. Specifically, the part about releasing the keys necessary to run the source (the TIVO clause) is much clearer and easier to understand.
The other changes seem to be patching holes in the logic that might have allowed someone to get around the GPL.
Qxe4
And gcc. And Gnome. And all the GNU utilities. ANd thats only the list of things I've used in the past 15 minutes or so.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The word DRM and the phrase Digital Restrictions Mangement no longer appear in the document. Instead they define a clause called "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures" which is basically the new anti-DRM clause.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
those links work fine, now at least
Come on, the anti-GPL crowd can do better than this clueless FUD.
If you really want to sink FOSS, you'll have to come up with something that doesn't sound like a post on Digg.
So if I read it will I have to open source my brain?
--
Clown Car Discounts
I don't understand how the user of the software (in this case, the webmaster) is bound by that requirement. The GPL is not an EULA, as I understand it. I don't have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software, only to distribute it.
I had to forget something. Here's a transcript of comments by Alan Cox.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I'm not anti-FOSS, I'm pro-freedom. Freedom to do whatever it is that you like with the applications on YOUR computer: wether it's watch dvds that I bought off of ebay under loonix or writing applications that only plays legitamately obtained music I should be able to do ANYTHING on my computer.
Screw Stallman and Gates BOTH.
So I haven't read through the entire draft just yet, but this section jumped out at me:
The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) (emphasis mine).
Should it really be fair to restrict some online service to have to treat all clients the same way just because one version was derived from another? Lets say I modify the source code of some browser that is covered by GPLv3. My version has some quirks that make it interpret css differently from the first browser. Would it then be illegal for a website to serve up different css based on my user agent string?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Ummm, if you would learn to bloody read, you would know that the FSF TONED BACK the anti-drm provisions to state that DRM is completely fine, as long as the DRM doesn't impede on a licensees right to access to source code. In other words, if the DRM doesn't affect a licensees rights under the GPL, the DRM is fine, even if it restricts music files, video files, etc.
As for the anti-patent stuff, please explain how YOU would word the license to allow people to distribute works covered by others' patents to all third-parties, royalty free, while giving them the right to do the same. It's simply impossible if the patent holder required royalties, the patent license and GPL would conflict.
I love when people don't RTFA, and make themselves look like idiots in the process.
"It allowed a way for people to redistribute GPLed code as a service without releasing changes."
Since when has exposing an API been against the GPL?*
*Let alone what that does to the whole "distribution or linking" argument.
"Your option, if you don't like this, is not to use GPLv3 code in your webservice, just like everyone else using GPLed code. You no onger get to have your cake and eat it too."
The flip side of that statement is that the world exercise that "option" and choses to not use anything GPL. The winner most certainly is not the GPL as far as web services are concerned (and that feeling could extend to other areas as well).
Linux Watch has published some comments from Linus.
The irony is that the GPL is making restrictions in order to fight them.
You're forgetting that this is Slashdot. Reading articles before making comments about them is frowned upon.
So kindly enlighten us with a better scheme that accomplishes the same goals without making restrictions.
The "GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Rationale" says "See Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" and "See Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management". Are these opinions available? I cannot find them by searching gplv3.fsf.org, fsf.org, or google.
It must be a great comfort to know that the new GPL allows you to distribute code that violates patents thus enabling you to be sued.
Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications isolated from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do you have a doc file of it?
Yes and No. The Linux Kernel people have stated they are happy with version 2. But the Linux Operating system consists of a lot more then just the kernel, and a large percentage of the software including gnome, gcc tool chain and the gnu utilies use the GPL so I would say the GPL v3 is very relevant.
Ummm, the old GPL allowed you to as well. In-fact, I was talking about the GPL v2, and it was the GPL v2 that I had open in-front of me when I wrote that comment. The GPL v3 increases the restrictions, but against the patent holding companies. Could you please actually read it (both 2 and 3)?
Commercial software companies are unable to filter every single patent in the world to make sure they are not infringing any of them, what makes you think a 2 developer team would be able to? For the GPL to require anyone to do so would be impractical...hell, to require Microsoft to do so would be impractical. The patent system is broken, and it is impossible to do what you think the GPL should require developers to do. The FSF found a balance, only requiring a ceasing of distribution once the patent holder requires it.
Do you honestly think every distributor of software, both proprietary and open source, knows every single patent in the world and whether or not they infringe it? If you do, you are incredibly naive.
I just wanted to note that I think that posts critical of GPL v3 and the GPL in general seem to be modded down fairly quickly as "flamebait" and "trolling" even if they have good points. I don't think that is appropriate.
*2 DRM becomes nastier when based on Treacherous Computing and other changes
in computer hardware which deny users the possibility of running modified or alternate
programs.
It looks like they had RMS personally writing the footnotes for this one.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The one really scary clause in v3 seems to be the one that everyone overlooks. The license termination clause looks rather toothless in comparison to GPL2, and, outside of the guy that runs the GPL violations web site, no one seems to be paying much attention to that.
The draft 2 clarification seems to make it better. The license says that the copyright holder has 60 days from the date of last violation to put the violator on notice. In cases of accidental violation, this means that if you fix the violation, a copyright holder can't come along 2 years later and say, "You were non-compliant 2 years ago, so your license terminated." Under the GPLv2, that situation could potentially happen (although to my knowledge, it hasn't yet).
In situations of continual and/or deliberate violation, the 60 day limit would by definition be a rolling deadline, so the copyright holder could notify the violator, then terminate the license accordingly. The provision for termination under this case certainly is not "toothless".
I don't see how this differs significantly from the GPLv2. It just provides a little shield for distributors who accidentally violated the GPL, but then fixed their violation and stayed clean afterward.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I had the same question, based on the following from the FSF FAQ:
"A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.
In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use. "
But it doesn't look like they actually put anything to that effect in this new version, unless I misunderstand the meaning of the word "propagate."
Anybody know what's going on here? I'd love to be able to get a handle on that.
Despite this, it has become the most popular FOSS license by far. Think about it.
If you're truly "pro-freedom", you're not going to object to someone extending your code, even if the purpose of their modifications is to *gasp* allow someone to burn a playlist more than 10 times, or share their music collection amongst SIX computers, and other horrors.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In the future, please look at link referents before clicking on them if you care about what's going to be returned.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
Half the kernel _does_ have the 'or later' option included anyway...
OK, as someone else pointed out before, the strict anti-DRM provisions are gone, but really, when has the GPL ever been pro-DRM? If you wrote a music player that could read a DRMed file and it was licensed under the GPL (why? Perhaps because the company that wrote it decided to save $500 and use some GPLed audio code instead of hiring an intern to write their own, then was forced to open the code while screaming and crying about "viral licenses" and "unfair competition".) then anyone could take that code and do whatever they wanted with it, including
1) make it play non-DRMed files
2) make it play DRMed files that you didnt own
3) make it play DRMed files to an mp3 encoder instead of a speaker
4) make it decrypt the file without re-encoding it
and so on.
The only dorks involved in this issue are the ones who couldn't be bothered to read the license and simply assumed they could reuse whatever code they could find, and are frankly lucky they're not getting sued for millions of dollars for reusing microsoft code they got off the internet.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The context was not clear. The last statement made by the poster you were responding to was making a claim about version 3, so without you quoting a different part of his post it was reasonable to assume you were referring to 3 as well.
I agree that the patent system is broken. I also think it's dumb for the GPL (any version) to encourage any behavior other than avoiding the incorporation of any patented algorithm in GPL'd code whether the patent is held by the code writer or anyone else and without regard to the probability that the patent holder will take action against it.
As you said, it's difficult to be sure that you're not violating a patent, but it's a problem that the GPL is powerless to solve, so it shouldn't try.
IANAL....
First, I am all for sharing code, even where not obligate by law. There are sound business reasons for sharing a great deal in that it reduces maintenance overhead and helps efficiency.
However, you have a number of problems with defining distribution in such a way as to include web services.
The first is that I am not convinced that either linking or dependency necessarily implies derivation. For example, if I write code which *can* compile either against OpenSSL or GnuTLS, I am either allowed to do so or I am forbidden to do so depending on how you read the GPL (no, OpenSSL's old-style-BSD license is not compatible). If I do nothing more than distribute my code, there is no way that the mere fact that it *can* link against OpenSSL can mean that it is derivative.
Similarly, if I create an architecture using the LGPL that allows me to link against any number of database drivers (similar to ODBC) and it happens to support MySQL, it doesn't seem to me that every program that the user may connect to MySQL through MySQL's GPL'd client libraries would be required to be GPL'd.
For similar reasons, I disagree with the Debian distro's stance on the Radius-PostgreSQL plugin (the issue is one of indirect linking where a GPL'd library links to a new-style BSD-license -- libpq -- liberary which in turn links to an old-style BSD library--openssl).
By stretching the definition this way, the immediate question is whether mere use of a web service by a program constitutes derivation.
Of course the real reason that these questions are unanswered by the courts is that they are too risky for either side to actually risk facing trial over and losing. So linking is a sort of no-mans land (though there are clearly cases where linking is *not* derivation just as loading the program from the hard drive into memory in order to run it is not generally considered to be protected copying in the absence of a contract).
By stretching the definition of distribution to include merely offering the functionality to the public, you also run into the question of whether that is enforceable under copyright law. I.e. if you don't further redistribute the software which offers the web service, then you are under no contractual obligation to distribute your changes unless such use is deemed to be distribution by the courts. The only way to get around this is to turn the GPL into a EULA, which I vehemently oppose. I cannot imagine courts ruling that the XML documents generated by the web service are any more "distribution of the copyrighted work" than offering pages generated by PHP implies distributing PHP itself. I can imagine questions of derivation arising (in part due to MySQL's past stance on the matter).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"If you're truly "pro-freedom", you're not going to object to someone extending your code, even if the purpose of their modifications is to *gasp* allow someone to burn a playlist more than 10 times, or share their music collection amongst SIX computers, and other horrors"
This isn't true. Pro-freedom would allow me to extend the code and close it up or extend the code and give my additions away. When you think about it, the original code would still be there, with all of it's glory (and freedom). Other people just wouldn't get my additions.
The GPL takes away the freedoms of the people that would like to keep their additions private.
The only truly free license is public domain.
Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be in this draft....
If you have a web service and offer the output code to the public, there are those who want you to offer the source if you use GPL'd components. No taking GPL'd components and creating something inhouse and offering the results to everyone else. Fortunately I don't think this is possible without making it a EULA instead of a copyright license.
The GPL has never stopped people from making private modifications and then offering services to the public based on them. Google, for example, is not required to release any Linux kernel or GPL'd library changes simply because they offer web sites to the public. The reason is simply that this is not a matter of copyright law (IANAL, though).
In essence there is no difference between saying "if you offer a web service, you have to offer your seb service's source code" and "if you compile your software against your own C libraries but you use the GCC, you must also distribute the GCC and its source code...."
All in all, I think this draft is far better than the last one.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If GPL continues to allow companies to incorporate GPL code into web apps that are then "released" to the public for public use without releasing the web app code, then the GPL will gradually become less and less relevant. The reason being that as time goes on, more and more classes of apps will shift from binary desktop apps to web apps (many of you raved over Google's web spreadsheet, for example), and such web apps are not covered under the GPL. So imagine a future where web apps are the norm; if such apps aren't covered under GPL, then GPL would be pretty worthless.
When GPL was written, there were no web apps, which is why the loophole exists today. Well, now there are many web apps (many that use GPL code, but don't release the changes even though the web apps are released for public use), and GPL must change with the times in order to remain relevant.
Oh, and as for your comment that closing the loophole would stifle development of new and innovative web apps, why does that logic not apply to distributed binaries as well? I really don't know why anyone would be against closing this loophole.
(Well, I could see why the Google faithful might want the loophole to remain, because it's been said that Google exploits the loophole more than anyone else.)
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Besides the change in terminology, what is the actual policy? Is GPL going to forbid any code that implements DRM functionality? If so, won't it be impossible to make a GPL app that plays BluRay and HD-DVD discs, since these discs use AACS DRM? Same goes for handling other DRM media?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Freedom is not about about imposing restrictions, it is about REMOVING restrictions. The more restrictions, conditions and stipulations that the GPL has, the less free it is.
The FSF deludes itself into thinking that restrictions are necessary for freedom, but that is because they do not understand what it is. They think freedom is about controlling the code they wrote even after they have given it away. They think it is about telling the user what he can or cannot do.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This is correct. Please mod up.
The FSF's reasoning seems to be that copyright law prohibits you from *modifying* a work without permission (regardless of whether you distribute it or not), not that EULAs are valid or that offering a Web service counts as distribution. So, the Web services clause would only apply to you if you changed a program, not if you simply used it to run a Web server.
There's a very big loophole here, because modifying isn't as "viral" as copying: A Web company could just outsource GPL programming to someone else, so that technically it isn't making any modifications (or copying, distributing, etc.) and doesn't need to accept the license.
So, I take your software, modify it a little to run on my embedded hardware appliance, sell the appliance with no mention of your software or the GPL. I sell it for 6 months, then phase in the new model, which is similar but not the same. Five months into the production of the first one, you, the author of the GPL code I'm misusing, get a tip about it. You have to go BUY one my appliances, which can be a significant outlay of money, then investigate it carefully, a significant outlay of your valuable time, before you can even be certain I did use your code. You're in the hole here, and you still have to give me 60 days to come into compliance before you can terminate the license and have any leverage at all with me. So, great, 30 days later, on schedule, I cease production of that model. You're out a good deal of time and money on the case, and have no way to recoup it. And if you suspect my new model might be similarly infringing, you've got to go back to step one and go buy it and spend time proving your case again.
Not to mention, in some jurisdictions, if you wait 60 days after becoming aware of the violation to file with a court for an injunction, you are no longer eligible to be granted an injunction.
The way this works now, under GPL v2, is great. The license terminates automatically. When copyright holders go to the time and expense of determining that a product infringes, they have the needed leverage to recoup those costs because of this. Under v3, they won't have that anymore. That will spell the end of enforcement activities by the vast majority of copyright holders, who simply don't have the time and money to do this with no hope of being able to recoup their costs. Take a look at gpl-violations.org. He's had a great deal of success enforcing his copyrights, getting the violators to reïmburse his expenses and come into compliance quickly, because he has a nice lever on them. GPL v3, as now drafted, takes that lever away.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
" Additional requirements are terms that further constrain use, modification or propagation of covered works. This License affects only the procedure for enforcing additional requirements, and does not assert that they can be successfully enforced by the copyright holder. Only these kinds of additional requirements are allowed by this License: ....
4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network session;"
Note the word "intended." This is an extremely brittle condition. Nothing prevents people from creating a command line utility from a web service app and someone else (with different intentions) from creating a web service wrapper (that communicates using pipes) which parses the output of the command line tool and offers the system as a web service. Such a web service isn't likely even derivative of the original by the FSF's somewhat arbitrary definition. Or indeed, breaking a piece off as a library and distributing that for general development and then someone else creating a web service based on that (which whether or not it is derivative is certainly not a "modified version of" the original work).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
THe GPL3 draft clause in this case has a loophole large enough to pilot a 747 through.
Yes, you can restrict modification, but a program under this draft which is not intended to be networked can drop the clause. Then other programs can take that modified version and make networked services out of it. Now this clause seems to require intent. But then you have to prove intent. And in a loosely coupled community, that may not be possible.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Fine. Now tell me who defines a user's rights. The WSJ would argue that it is within bounds to restrict content and services to its paying subscribers.
Should be released next year.
Why is this under the Linux section when Torvalds has explicitly stated that the kernel will not be GPLv3?
FC Closer
"it must be possible for modified versions to" != "modified versions are obligated to"
It merely says that if you distribute a DVD player under the GPL, anyone receiving it has the right -- but not the obligation -- to modify it and have it remain a functional DVD player. In other words, if the program includes a list of player keys, those keys are part of the source.
That doesn't prevent you from taking code from the DVD player and turning it into a Web browser. And assuming the modified program no longer plays DVDs -- or even if it is capable of playing DVDs but the binary distribution doesn't include any keys for that purpose -- you are no longer obligated to include the keys along with the source distribution.
Does that make any sense?
All 288 GNU utilities in 15 minutes or so. That's got to be a record.
So if I read it will I have to open source my brain?
You can't open source something you haven't got.
ZING!
Kidding! I'm kidding!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
You have to go BUY one my appliances, which can be a significant outlay of money, then investigate it carefully, a significant outlay of your valuable time, before you can even be certain I did use your code.
This part is a red herring. The same is true for GPLv2. Do you think copyright violations go away magically because they are violations? No, they require the copyright holder to first notice the violation, including collecting some sort of evidence of genuine violation, then commence some sort of legal action, usually involving the sending of a cease and desist notice.
You're in the hole here, and you still have to give me 60 days to come into compliance before you can terminate the license and have any leverage at all with me.
Substantially incorrect. I quote from GPLv3-draft2 Section 8. Emphasis is mine:
It is very simply stated and unambiguous. If the copyright holder notices current, ongoing violation then obviously 60 days have not yet passed since the last violation, as the violation is happening currently. Thus, the copyright holder is within his rights to put the violator on notice. Having put the violator on notice, if the violation is not corrected promptly, the copyright holder may then terminate the license at any time. There is no requirement in the language for the copyright holder to wait some specified period of time after noticing infringement before he acts. He is free to act immediately once he notices the infringement.
I suspect you did not notice the "not" in the clause "...provided 60 days have not elapsed...". That would explain your apparent confusion.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
but it's a problem that the GPL is powerless to solve, so it shouldn't try.
Why don't you go & read the article, the GPLv3 draft and the GPLv2 before you comment here? You clearly have no idea what the patent clause is trying to achieve & are looking like a complete dick in the process.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Hey, I'm just responding to posts written here. If the guys I'm responding to don't know what their talking about it's their problem not mine.
Frankly I don't understand why you feel you have the time to call me a dick but you don't have time to "set me straight" on the purpose of the patent clause. Is it that you don't understand it or are you afraid of having to defend the interpretation you post here?
Sure. Just download the .txt file and rename it with a .doc extension.
Join the Free Software Foundation
"Public domain" is not a license. It is the absense of copyright. This, strange as it may seem, can be less free than copyrighted with a liberal license: some countries don't permit authors to disclaim copyrights. If a country doesn't, the material is copyrighted, and no license is granted to distribute and/or modify it. The same effect as what is intended by simply "public domain" can be got using the WTFPL, Wikipedia's approach, or something similar.
If I release some software that links against a completely unmodified GPLed library, should I be required to licence my software under the GPL? If all it's doing is binding (at runtime) to an already-available shared library, I'm not entirely convinced that the GPL should "infect" me in this case. Of course, if I distribute the shared library myself along with a binary distribution of my product I should be required to offer the source code of the shared library, but not of my own product which does not actually contain any code from that library.
If I was to statically link so that my executable is a derived work of the shared library, I've got no qualms with the GPL "infecting" me in that case. Things get even more tricky when you consider higher-level languages that always bind at runtime, like Java. Is saying
in my source file enough for me to need to distribute my software under the GPL? Should it be? Can it be, by law?TNSTAAFL?
Man, you forgot the verb! Verbs are important!
Anyone here can tell me whether the GPLv3 allows linking with LGPL v2.1 libraries? What about the opposite, can GPLv2 software be linked against LGPL v3 (that is GPLv3 + LGPL-like permission)?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
you mean sued for $500.
The issue is that, under the proposed GPL3:
- if you get a GPL3 script, modify it, and then use it to generate a bunch of static HTML files, which you put on the web, those were "generated with" the GPL3 script, and so the output isn't bound by the GPL3
- if you get a GPL3 script, modify it, and then hook it up to your web server to serve dynamic HTML files, that's "distributing a program which is linked with GPL3 code", and it is bound by the GPL3
That is, these web sites are polar opposites in view of the GPL3, even though the technical difference between them is slight. You could take either script and use it the other way -- users see the same thing, and there's only a minor change to the server configuration.
I'm a free software advocate, and I have no problem distributing source code for GPL-derived programs I work on, but such a subtle distinction having such major ramifications is weird to me. Where exactly is the line? e.g., what if I run a script nightly/hourly/5-minute-ly -- is that a web service, or generated HTML files?
I'm a developer at a Fortune 100 company. I don't use Linux here (though I know a couple people who are lucky enough to). But everybody uses gobs of other GPL software. Cygwin is step 1 of the new-user-setup.
Without GNU software, all work here would come to a screetching halt. As just one example, everything we do is in CVS, which is licensed under GPL-1-or-later. (Sure, we'd love to switch to SVN, but there's just far too much infrastructure built up here to do so any time soon.)
It is not clear to me how this passage would apply in the situation where a server is intentionally trying to verify that client code has not been modified.
GPLv3 is a betrayal of the principle that myself and many other developers agreed to when we released our code under the GPLv2 "and future versions." We trusted the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to do exactly what they said they would, which was keep the license up to date with the latest legal mumbojumbo and keep the bother of thinking about that stuff off my back.
I'm a coder, not a lawyer. I don't want to worry about intellectual property issues, I want to write code. I want to see my code getting used by other people, and if someone fixes bugs or adds universally valuable features to my code, I don't want to bother duplicating or reverse engineering that work.
What I didn't expect, and what I never should have to expect, is the FSF to turn around and start making my code less free. The day GPLv3 comes out in the current version, I no longer have the freedom to do things with the software that I originally wrote and maintained without getting permission from 50+ contributors (some of which have completely outdated contact info). This is exactly the headache I went to FSF to avoid.
As far as I'm concerned, having a software license impact hardware because FSF cares about hardware makes as much sense as having it require me to be a vegitarian because FSF cares about little fuzzy animals. Worrying about open source software on locked hardware is a fantasy problem.
If there wasn't available hardware that ran it for free:
It just makes no sense, except as an annoyance to people who are trying to use open source software. There's plenty of legitimate reasons for people to have locked in hardware. Every single reasonable person knows why Tivo (to use a concrete example) does what they do: to make it harder for Hollywood to sue them. To make it harder for someone to stand in front of a joint House and Senate subcommittee and say "Look, this is how Tivo is enabling piracy." To be able to keep providing a valuable service without getting shutdown.
Tell you what, if manufactures are every so stupid that they try to eliminate any possiblity of free and open platforms through hardware, I'll start my own company and make a zillion dollars selling free and open platforms. It's that simple and that's why it will never happen. Capitalism trumpts fantasy distopia in every instance. In the meantime, FSF needs to stop trying to restrict the freedom of well-meaning coders who've trusted them.
You are correct in one small point, I did scan the dif of v2 and v3 in haste, and miss the significant change. However, it is far from fixing the problem here, and you are also misinterpreting what I said badly very badly.
Absolutely, it's the same under v2 or v3. That was my point, which seems to have flown right over your head. It's the same in any case of copyright violation. It means incurring substantial costs. If the enforcement effort cannot generate revenue at least equal to those costs, the world being what it is, enforcement will be rare indeed.
Under v2, however, in the scenario I gave, it's unambiguous and unarguable that the license terminated on the shipment of the first appliance - five months BEFORE the copyright holder was even aware of the problem. That means a court may be asked for damages for the entire lot, and all profit made by the violation might be forfeited. There's no room for argument and games. This is why folks like Harold Welte can afford to do enforcement actions and ensure the rest of us the access to source code that the GPL requires we be granted. He says 'comply with the license and reïmburse me my expenses and we'll call it good, otherwise see you in court tomorrow' and the violators lawyers say 'don't go to court, there's nothing we can argue here' so the case gets resolved.
Under v3, even with the change to the language, it can be argued that violators are in the clear as long as their violations are 60 days old before they are noticed. It can also be argued that violations prior to license termination are not actionable, or are actionable at a reduced level only. This ambiguity is NOT good for enforcement efforts. It gives violators lawyers room to argue and delay and play all kinds of games in court - just the encouragement they need to go there, instead of complying immediately. It may 'encourage' corporate use of GPL code yes, but we're talking about use in violation of its terms, which is not something that needs to be encouraged. There's quite enough of that going on already, thanks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Despite this, it has become the most popular FOSS license by far. Think about it.
Dear Anonymous Coward,
GPLv2 also struck a good balance between restricting a developer's rights to distribute software how they saw fit and use it in commercially viable devices, and the requirement to always reciprocate the usage of the source code. GPLv3 makes no such balance-- it is an all-out war against corporate software. Thus my comment that GPLv3 will become, rather than a successor to GPLv2, "just another open source license" of which we have over a dozen already. At least it will separate out the socialist/communists (GPLv3) from the drive-out-extra-costs-from-the-supply-chain capitalists (GPLv2).
E pluribus unum