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
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
People put code out under the GPL because they want changes to be redistributed. The fact that you could use the code as a webservice was never intended as a feature of the GPL, it was a loophole. It allowed a way for people to redistribute GPLed code as a service without releasing changes. If this change makes it into GPL3 it will be a good thing. IMO, its one of the two most important changes needed in the GPL (the other being patents).
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.
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
TNSTAAFL?
I may be an OSSer, but I have nothing against commercial code, per se. How about this?: choose the set of rules you wish to operate under. If you want to keep the code closed to make money, pay money for your code base. If you wish to use GPLed code, pay for it with GPLed code. And there's always BSD.
The GPL does not exist to promote the development of new and innovate web applications. It exists to promote the development of new and innovate code available to The People. Nor is the GPL the source of Microsoft's FUD. It is not its duty to ammeliorate it, but to oppose it.
Personally I don't really care whether you agree with it or not, but that is what the damned license is for.
KFG
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 [sic] the source as per the GPL...
The short story is that this definition of distribution (distribution is now called "conveying" in license language) has been rejected by the FSF and does not appear by default in this draft of GPL3.
The longer story: Some web services projects do want to include a link to allow users to download source, and they do want to limit server administrators from removing this capability. To appease this group, the FSF has added an optional license provision that forbids removal of such a feature. I repeat, this is an optional license feature that takes effect if and only if a given project explicitly activates it.
I suspect that you are right and that most web service providers will not want to use up resources with users downloading web service source. So, I suspect that the market will cause any such projects to diminish in popularity. The important thing to note is that the FSF is not forcing this notion of distribution on any project using the GPLv3.
On a related note, the GPLv3 drafts Section 7b contains a list of optional license restrictions (including the above mentioned restriction) that are permissible. All of these restrictions are things that the FSF does not believe are necessary to maintain a Free program, but that the FSF acknowledges won't seriously harm user freedom if individual projects choose to activate them. Mostly, this list is provided to improve the GPLv3's compatibility with other Free Software licenses which contain equivalent restrictions but are incompatible with GPLv2. This attempt at license compatibility with other Free Software licenses is a big improvement for the GPL.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I had to forget something. Here's a transcript of comments by Alan Cox.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
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.
So, if I used a GPLed programming language to make my website, must I offer the full source to that language? What if I use GPLed software to generate a movie, then put it on the web? Now, what if I use GPLed software to generate a random file, then put it on the web? What if that file is html? Where's the line?
Mmmmmm!!! Delicious FUD cakes! Straight from Bullshit Lane Bakeries.
The GPL has never, will never, and can never cover the generated output of any GPL'ed program. This can only occur in the mind of a poor deluded fool, such as yourself. The GPL covers only the source code, and binaries generated from the source code. Not, I repeat, not binaries generated from the binaries, or anything else they might produce.
As for a "GPL'ed programming language", I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean. Languages exist independantly of the programs that interpret them, in theory at least. Language symantics cannot be copyrighted anymore than mathematical relationships can.
May the Maths Be with you!
I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm not convinced that transmitting the output of, say, phpBB2 is the same as distributing the source of phpBB2. If I install it and modify a page, should I be obligated to make my patch available to anyone who views that page? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way, but a real issue that the GPLv3 introduces.
The same could be said of any other GPLv3ed software that uses some kind of templating system to generate output. Word processors, code generators, database frontends, drawing programs: those all incorporate parts of themselves into their end products. Should graphics drawn with The GIMP be GPL because they contain circles made by The GIMP's copyrighted code? If not, then what's the fundamental difference between The GIMP and phpBB that should restrict the output of one and not the other?
I apologize if this comes off like a troll, but I'm really curious. I don't understand this viewpoint but would be interested in seeing it logically supported.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
*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.