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
In the future, please warn when linking to audio files.
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
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
I had to forget something. Here's a transcript of comments by Alan Cox.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Yes, you're right that copyright law doesn't cover use. However, you DO have to have a license to modify the code as well, irregardless of whether you distribute it. As soon as the webmaster modifies the code for use in his web app, he must comply with the GPL. By removing that code that implements this feature, he is modifying the code outside of the terms of the GPL, and thus in violation.
Remember, copyright law places limitations not only on distribution, but also on modification and creation of derivitive works, even if there is no distribution of those modified works. So that is how this clause works. If you made a derivitive of Windows for internal use without Microsoft's permission, you would be infringing their copyright, unless you had a license to do so.
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.
Linux Watch has published some comments from Linus.
The irony is that the GPL is making restrictions in order to fight them.
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.
*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.
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
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