Slashdot Mirror
FSF Releases Third Draft of GPLv3
johnsu01 writes "The Free Software Foundation has announced publication
of the third discussion draft of the
GNU General Public License Version 3. Because quite a few changes have been
made since the previous draft and important new issues have surfaced, the
drafting process has been extended and revised to
encourage more feedback. The most
significant changes in this draft
include refinements in the "tivoization" provisions to eliminate unwanted side
effects, revision of the patent provisions to prevent end-runs around the
license, and further steps toward compatibility with other free software
licenses. The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new
patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."
I thought GPL3 had been out for ages at this point. You mean it's still just a draft? Talk about the glacial speed and progress of committees. How long has GPL3 taken so far - and it's still not completed?
I kind of doubt it, but I'm no shyster.
Apparently completely neglecting the fact that they have no legal basis on which to do that...
Somebody needs to remind Richard Stallman that Free stands for Freedom. He seems to have forgotten.
Are there any articles about this from 3rd-party sources, and not the FSF themselves? I'd really like some analysis that isn't from those that produced it.
Well, a daft post anyway -- but certainly not the first.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal
Is that really an option? Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it was distributed and agreed to? I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3-- and even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?
First off, a public service. The actual draft is located here - it's linked as "comment on the GPLv3 draft" but it turns out it's the actual draft itself. (Apparently it's a weird web 2.0 interface to post and read comments, but it's the text of the draft.)
Secondly, does any know if this removes the provision that I have to give up my private encryption keys if I use GPLv3 software?
And finally, it's sad to note that the GPLv3 is now about as full of legalese as your typical Microsoft EULA. I have no idea what it's saying any more. Kind of sad that he live in such an age that licenses that the end-user can understand can't be used because lawyers will poke them full of holes.
Do we REALLY need a GPL v3?
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
GPLv3 cannot be retroactive.
The question asked is whether the provisions that prevent deals such as the MS-Novell deal should have an explicit exclusion for that deal by Novell. i.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?
That's the question asked.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."
I didn't see that in any of TFAs; does anyone have a link?
There is no "retroactive" change. That comment refers to the last setence of the 2nd last paragraph of section 11. That sentence, which is in square brackets, would make the ban only apply to deals that are made starting from today, so that deal by Novell and MS would not trigger the ban on distributing the software.
So the public are asked: should Novell be banned from distributing GPLv3'd software?
And, imlicitly, I guess, Novell are asked: What assurances can you give us to win our trust so that giving you this exception is justified?
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I remember when freedom wasn't quite so complicated and obfuscated. With things getting so verbose and convoluted, more people will probably eschew things like GPLv3 just to keep things unpretentious.
With such a long license, and so many companies now using free software in their products, I bet some will follow these simple steps:
1. Open a law firm
2. Interpret the GNU GPLv3
3...Profit!
the drafting process has been extended and revised
It should be ready in time for the Hurd.
The question most people seem to be wondering about with v3 is whether it's too ambitious - seeking to prevent abuses of the license in ways some disagree with. Personally, I haven't made up my mind, exactly. I think the underlying premise of the GPL is great - that it is a license that allows free usage in a way that encourages more free usage - and GPL3 is taking that further, by trying to keep people from taking advantage of free software while simultaneously using patents against it, by trying to prevent people from using free software to create devices that restrict users' freedom (the idea being, that if someone wants a big DRM box, they can write the code themselves)
The flip side, of course, is at some point free software has to be something you give. At some point you need to let go, and let people use the stuff. That's why you wrote it, right? So people would use it. This is the sticking point for me - I like what GPLv3 is trying to accomplish - I even want to support what it's trying to accomplish - but sometimes, if you want your gift of software to be really useful, you need to stop attaching quite so many strings to it.
But all that aside, the real problem with the GPL v3 is that new clause that RMS will personally strangle a kitten every time someone uses GPLv3 code in a DRM box. We've got to see about getting that clause removed.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
I only skimmed the draft, but it seems in this whole Novel-Microsoft thing, the part about web-apps has been lost. There was talk about getting this base covered.
Right now if I write some code and GPL it someone can take that code, use it in the regular ways that is permitted by the GPL, but then instead of distributing it, they turn it into a web-app and charge people to use the code. Since they are not technically distributing the binaries, they don't have to release the code, whether they've modified it or not.
The FSF has taken the Novell/M$ deal and created a way for those who hate M$(which includes Stallman and the FSF) and are trying to assert their dominance in the penis envy race because companies like Novell and TiVo have the unmitigated gall to find ways around the "spirit" of the current version of the GPL, v2, which has served us well for the last 15+ years. While the FSF and Stallman have helped create the systems we have now, their hatred of the fact that they are no longer in control will be the downfall of a lot of systems if this idiotic draft is allowed to stand with these provisions. Thanx for nothing new FSF!
Oh darn, sorry wrong URL. Try here
Bruce Perens.
No, retrospective changes are not an option, and no, FSF is not trying to do any. "Retrospective" was just a bad choice of words.
The decision is whether the patent deal provisions should apply to all such patent deals, including the Novell-MS one, or only patent deals that are made from now on.
So the question to the community is: Do Novell deserve to be let off?
And the question to Novell is: What promise can you make to earn the communities trust so that they could justify letting you off?
(I've also clarified this above.)
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The current common header for the license says: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
This means that the program you write is also covered by GPL3, as soon as it's out. I guess that is what retroactive means in this contest
Clarity is good for everyone. The text is longer than v2, but it is more explicit and should be clearer. If you see a way to make it clearer, please submit a comment.
Here's some suggestions for how to increase simplicity.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I'm curious how the adoption of GPLv3 will play out. The kernel is going to stay at v2 for the foreseeable future, so the new version will mostly apply to the GNU tool chain. There are enough companies out there who like the loopholes of v2 (TiVo, SuSE, etc.), will they maintain a fork of the code that stays licensed under v2, perhaps individually, perhaps as a collective effort amongst those with reason to balk at v3? Another possibility is to just keep on using versions of the code that were released under v2. Some things, like /bin/ls, really don't change enough that everyone will feel compelled to step up to the latest version. On the other hand, if the GNU software the company depends on is gcc, staying at a particular release and not having support for new processor technologies in your compiler would start to become problematic after a while.
So, how do you guys think the companies for whom adopting GPLv3 would eliminate loopholes will react to the new license? Somehow, I don't think they will just all go, "Oh, so that's how you intended Free Software to be used. We will play nicely from now on."
>The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software. That simply means that if the software violates the patent, then end user, not the distributor, is always responsible for the infringement.
Not so, it says that you cannot redistribute it in those cases.
The draft is more problematic in this area because any cross license that you signed that may include a patent in a GPL'd code base could prohibit you from redistributing the code base if you know about it.
Company A has 50 cross licenses with other companies and also is a linux distributor.
Company B has a cross license with A and relations turn sour between the two companies.
Company B informs 'unknowing' Company A that Company B's cross licensed Patent 999 is included in linux, thus forcing 'knowing' company A to either cease its redistribution operations or drop the cross license.
Company A could then attempt to quit the license agreement but that brings on a new set of problems.
Anyone feel free to correct this interpretation if you have a better one.
OTOH, Apple are open bastardos, and they get away with everything too. Just try to critizise them and watch your karma go down faster than Ted Haggard on a rentboy.
That question does not exist in isolation.
Maybe there is a way out of this where Novell could repent, make a promise which would nullify the harms it created, and then we could go back to working together.
Fixing the patent situation is necessary, but it is worth asking for suggestions for the most productive way of doing this.
This also answer feranick's question, below. Maybe Novell, or Novell+MS could make a 2nd deal which would make things ok again.
So FSF is looking for some inspiration, a little creative thinking. If you have any, they're asking for your comments.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
A few thoughts from a *very* quick read of it:
* They mention you need to supply "Corresponding Source" (eg, signing keys for Tivo-ization) to all "User Products" but defined "user Products" to basically mean anything that goes in the home. So business-style rack appliances that are not designed for the home can Tivo-ize at their leisure. This is apparently intentional, according to the rationale pdf. This seems....messy, and a huge potential hole.
* Moving away from calling out specific parts of the US code for the anti-DMCA parts and over to calling out the WIPO is a bit better for international users of the GPL, but they then call out US code again in the definition of a home device. This is problematic. Defining a for-the-home product in other countries will be difficult. (What do we do for this license in countries that have no such distinction?) They seem to acknowledge this in the rationale PDF, and say that they're evaluating it.
(Personally, I think these two issues are just the beginning of the uglyness with the anti-tivo-ization stuff, and they'll eventually be forced to drop these clauses in the name of sanity, but that's just me.)
* The anti-Novell portion is *incredibly* confusing. There has to be a better way to say that. It seems to be written just to target Novell and the specific thing Novell is doing, which I think invites problems. For example, what if the third party you make a deal with isn't in the business of distributing software? (such as the patent/IP houses that exist all over the place) Is a "we won't sue your customers" deal okay then? This section needs a *lot* more thought.
You and Bruce seem to have hit this submission fast and hard. Out there doing the GPL v3 promo leg work. Consider that if the changes to the license were to make it legally stronger, or more clearly define its provisions, you wouldn't have to be doing this. Everyone in the community would accept it as an improvement. As it is, the thing is just progessing more and more toward handcuffing users to Stallman's personal social agendas.
Good for you guys. I'm just happy I was able to use this software and contribute where I could while it was actually about freedom and furthering the advancement of computer software, in the days before you drove it all into the ground. Now that it is all about restricting who does what with what I think I'll just go somewhere else.
BSD never looked so good.
I wonder what changed their minds.
RMS never understood what real freedom was all about in the first place. GNU Freedom is apparently freedom with a number of terms and conditions and is viral in nature. That my friend, is an oxymoron because freedom cannot have terms and conditions given that freedom is the lack of rules and regulations. I think hippies like RMS have confused "rights" with freedoms. The former is something that is granted by authority with or without limits whereas the latter springs out of a lack of regulation.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
My freedom ends at the tip of your nose. Stallman's intentions for greater freedom may be good. But I have the feeling he wants to control the behavior of other people.
Real freedom is allowing people to use free software for good or ill.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
>While you can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, you can use terms of your license to prevent Microsoft and its partners from distributing your software once they do this.
What about the following scenario?
Company D has 100000 patents and knows that they can stick it to MS.
Company D therefore knows that they can at low risk indemnify their Linux customer base if MS were to assert patents.
This indemnification would be in effect functioning similarly to an agreement not to enforce. But I do not see any indemnification clause (prohibiting distribution) in the draft (nor do I know if the ramifications of including such an indemnification clause would be prohibitive)
"For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" means a patent license, a covenant not to bring suit for patent infringement, or any other express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent."
Look at the four essential freedoms. They are ALL about USER freedoms. The programmer who wrote the code has all the freedoms they need: choose the license you want.
What other license looks for the users' freedoms? None. This has not changed. Just YOUR perception of what "FSF-free" means. You thought it meant YOUR freedom with someone else's code. Now you know different.
There's a reason there were only 10 commandments. This draft is unclear and difficult to think through, I support the intent here but would not be applying this to my code in it's current form.
Take the termination clause for example; why make a special case for first infringements? The GPL is about compliance, we expect compliance. The copyright holder should positively renew a GPL license that has been rendered void through infringement, we don't need special conditions in the license text. System libs are another grey area that this draft makes a mess trying to clarify.
'My freedom ends at the tip of your nose'
How would you feel if I demanded royalty payments for your Linux desktop that you didn't buy from me.
davecb5620@gmail.com
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2 007-March/026102.html
r ter-mac.html), took ffmpef, renamed it to avc, put it in a nice box and are making money on the work of others without even giving credit where it's due.
It seems that these fellows (http://www.mp4converter.net/dvd-to-appletv-conve
1. This license can be applied except in circumstances where:
a. Your company's name starts with 'N' and/or ends in 'll' (e.g. Novell).
b. Your company is a gross misspelling of the word "novel" (e.g. Novell).
c. Your company's logo is a single letter (e.g. a red 'N').
d. An agent of your company has been within 20 feet of anyone working for a company within a 10 mile radius of Seattle, WA (e.g. Redmond).
e. Half of your employees do not remember the name of your current CEO.
You may apply for a special exemption specifically from Richard Stallman of the FSF, but only if he's wearing a disk platter on his head at the time of the application.
2. If you own a patent, deal with patents, or can even spell the word patent, you may not use this license at all, in fact you are not to read it... stop reading here.... (thanks).
3. If you use cryptography, encryption or anything else related to digital rights management, you cannot use the terms of this license unless you give us the keys for your access.
4. XEmacs sucks. It just does. They used my code without permission. They're evil. Don't use it.
Note: #4 may be the most controversial part of GPLv3.
'defined "user Products" .. anything that goes in the home. So business-style rack appliances .. can Tivo-ize at their leisure .. This seems....messy, and a huge potential hole'
.. Re:Quick issues
'Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial purposes', rationale.pdf
'what if the third party you make a deal with isn't in the business of distributing software?'
Well then they won't be liable for selling any infringing code will they !!
was
davecb5620@gmail.com
grandfather clause
n.
A provision in a statute that exempts those already involved in a regulated activity or business from the new regulations established by the statute.
Linux is just the kernel
Good luck running your computer without it. Whatcha gonna use? HURD? Minix?
It's possible to run the linux kernel with a gpl2 userland (IE: what 99.9% of us are doing now), but it isn't possible to run a gpl2 userland without the linux kernel.
That my friend, is an oxymoron because freedom cannot have terms and conditions given that freedom is the lack of rules and regulations.
Very, very wrong. You cannot have freedom without rules and regulations, because without them, people are allowed to take away your freedom. Anarchy is just dictatorship by the strongest. Rule of law is what allows more than one person to be free.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Looks like the FSF has admitted failure in one of the major goals of GPLv3; they're no longer trying to be compatible with the Apache License 2.0. It frustrates me that they are solving problems like "Tivoization" but not this. Maybe the ASF can create an Apache 2.1 license to solve this.
The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."
This apparent tantrum from Richard Stallman and the FSF is do more to damage the future of FOSS than anything Microsoft, Novell, or SCO could ever hope to do. It will fracture the open source community. It will be fractured into multiple pieces and marginalized. This will be very bad.
GPLV2 has been described as a virus. What will GPLV3 be called? A virus that eats it's own?
IANAL, but OMG FFS FSF, GPL3 can't work AB. AFAIUI, we need GPL3 AEAP, if Novell/MS's deal 2B AMF.
What I mean is that the goals of giving away software and maintaining control over it are, at some level, not entirely compatible. Restrictions in the GPL do have the potential to prevent people from taking advantage of your software - some liberties are denied in order to protect others - I have accepted that trade-off in general, for roughly the reasons they were added to the license in the first place - but as more restrictions are being added to the license I must come to terms with them - and ultimately embrace them or not.
:) I think it's more interesting that way.
Extreme (degenerate) cases of this trade-off, of course, would be that you give your software freely but don't actually let anyone do anything with it - or you let people do whatever they want, in which case the protections we enjoy in licenses like GPL don't work. GPL has to live in between the extremes, as do all licenses (even BSD license has some restrictions) - it's technically correct, but maybe misleading, to say GPL is getting closer to one of the extremes - GPLv3 is more restrictive than GPLv2, but relative to the infinite potential for becoming more restrictive, it hasn't moved far at all. But nonetheless some, myself included, wonder from time to time whether the GPLv3 is too restrictive. The potential danger of a license that's too restrictive is that people simply won't use it - that they'll stick with GPLv2 (and possibly face legal loopholes of that document being exploited), or they'll choose another license (which may be even more vulnerable), etc. I want GPL to exist as a strong license and one that people will actually use - so that the collection of software that benefits from its protection will continue to grow. I do believe that's how it will be in the end, but the process of getting to that point - where people will generally feel as comfortable with the GPLv3 as they were with GPLv2 - it may just be a matter of time, or it may take more change to the GPL.
It's not as though I'm laying down the law here - saying that gifts must be given freely - I'm just talking about my perspective, and how I feel about the license, and the general question of what it really means to give something away while retaining control over it. It's not my goal to cast FUD, it's just that to me this isn't an entirely simple matter. I'd rather talk about my current perspective than keep my mouth shut.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Ok, you are still confusing rights and freedoms. Freedom is a state of being. It can also be condition created by set of laws enacted by the state or by simply being away from everyone else. It most certainly is not within the privy of contract law to grant. Contracts and licenses can grant different types of "rights". There is s fundamental difference between your freedom of speech and the rights you have under a contract. The latter is far more limited compared with your "freedoms". Did you notice the word "free' at the beginning of the word freedom?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Long Answer: Nooooooooooo!
</Anakin>
0. Create a derivative work based on GPL'd software.
1. Sell your derivative work to a distributor as two CDs, one with the compiled code, and one with the source.
2. Distributor discards the CDs with the source and sells the CDs with the binary.
3. PROFIT!
Why this works:
Copyright does not prohibit distribution, only copying. The original party meets their GPL requirement for distributing the source by distributing the source with the binary.
The distributor has no obligation to distribute the source, since they have made no copies, and having not made any copies, have no obligations under the GPL. Thus, the end user can't get the source from either the distributor nor the original party.
paintball
One of the big reason's I think the GPL v. 2 was such a good license is that it was a simple license with a simple objective. The problem I see with the new license is that it is losing it's KISS (keep it simple stupid) roots to go after issues that piss off free software advocates. Can people abuse the GPL's spirit but maintain the letter of the law? Yes but I think of that as a feature and not an issue (as advocates of free speech nicely put "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it.") . Why- because restrictions in licenses often have unintended consequences. One of those consequences is having a license that gets more convoluted as time goes by. If every time somebody finds a loop hole in how you want your software license used, you need to change your license, the closer the language of your license becomes "you can use our software until we don't like you".
... still play media". One of the really nice things about GPL v. 2 is the lack of imbiguety of the language and definitions.
Right now, the gpl is trying to define things like "intended for home use" and "only use patents for defensive purposes and "modify
I miss the Karma Whores.
I'm puzzled by the extent of the anti-GPLv3 reactions. It really isn't all that different from GPLv2.
The patent provisions of v3 are more explicit than those of v2, but they amount to the same thing: by distributing GPLed work, you grant downstream permission to use patents that are necessary to what you distributed. Earlier drafts were either overreaching or less clear, but I don't see much of a practical difference from v2 now.
The anti-Tivoization clauses are new, but they're pretty simple. You can't distribute a consumer device with GPLv3 software that cannot effectively be changed (unless it's in a ROM or something). Earlier drafts would cause problems with things like medical devices, that need certified and hence unchangeable software, but that's been explicitly removed in this draft.
The web apps clauses are gone from this draft, as far as I can tell. This may or may not be a good thing, but it's another lack of change between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
There's a large number of detail changes, but some of these are more permissive. The requirements for distributing source code are somewhat relaxed over the GPLv2 requirements. Nor do I see that it's harder to read GPLv3 (this draft, anyway; the last one was rather opaque).
So, for all of you that thing GPLv3 is wrong-headed, what do you object to? There's too many of you to make me think that it's all the anti-Tivoization clauses. I'm not interested in reasons that apply equally to GPLv2, or personal animosity towards Stallman and the FSF. I'm asking what's wrong with the current draft of GPLv3 that would make you want to continue to use GPLv2.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This also prevents the end-user from making copies of the program and distributing them, since the license only allows them to copy the program if they make the source available, and they don't have the source.
Even if the original party selling the copies does not intend to limit it's distribution, by merely not distributing the source CDs, the distributor is able to prevent the end user from redistributing the software, since they are required to provide the source code and they don't have it.
paintball
You never appeared to actually demonstrate that there was no clause requiring you to give up your keys, and given that Linus appeared to believe there was, I'm taking Linus's word over yours.
In any case, do you have any swarmy answers to why the license is now 15 sections of incomprehensible legalese?
I can't understand any of the GPLv3, but I never had problems figuring out the older version.
I now have two concerns about the GPLv3 after trying to wade through that document:
1) Will I be able to understand the license? (and if not do I really want to release code under it?) I would strongly suggest a non-legalase summary be included in the final version.
2) Will it actually be worth anything outside the US? Every single legal reference pointed to US law, they take definitions from existing US laws and they comment that certain provisions are compatible with US law. I'm beginning to wonder if RMS and co. realize that a majority of the world lives outside the US.
Perhaps they are attempting to concentrate on US law and then branch out into the rest of the world later but to me that seems a somewhat dubious tactic since the thing looks so complex at the moment that I'm not convinced that it can be compatible with multiple countries' laws all at once. So I also wonder if there will end up being multiple versions of GPLv3 as you go around the world.
This isn't going to be very helpful, but on a recent Slashdot discussion I saw a reader commenting on GPL v3 not beeing enough to proect free software. I do not remember the discussion, nor the user. It worried me for a while, but then I moved on.
If you subscribe to Linux Weekly News (LWN), LWN has an analysis article about the GPL3.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
And it's not like the FSF is the only group that has to deal with the real world. Anyone recall the massive fuss made by the OpenSSH team about groups not paying them to work on OpenSSH? Even though they created it under the BSD license which does not require anyone to pay them, they still felt the need to attack those who did not pay them. Seems to me that both groups have imposed practical limitations on the extent to which they will tolerate dissenters. IMHO the FSF is actually more honest about it because they are making it EXPLICIT in the license what they expect from those who use their software. The BSD folks seem more inclined to attack the GPL for not being "truly" free, and then turn around and attack people who actually treat the BSD license that way.
Will you all be sending in your $699 cheques to MicroSCOft soon? I certainly hope so, because at some point or another the legal loopholes in the current GPL will be successfully exploited by someone down the line and you are all going to owe them a lot of money. I guess your other alternative is to go with an OS from a vendor who provides "indemnification". I hope you like Windows or AIX, then.
"After the deal there is a good chance that Novell won't be so careful because they no longer have to fear legal action."
MS hasn't made any deal with Novell that shields it from a MS lawsuit.
Whoa, section 4.4 states that GPLv3 will *not* be Apache 2.0 compatible! This is horrible news. A huge part of the free software in Java land is Apache licensed and many people put a lot of hope in the GPLv3 ASL 2.0 compatibility promise. When did this happen?
But the previous version (if any) is still either GPLv2 or "GPLv2 or any later version", and the copyright owner cannot revoke this act of licensing the code under GPLv2. Forks will proceed from the last version that was distributed under GPLv2.
So does that mean that all the GPL Javascript I send to clients has to be in source form, i.e., I can't, say, compress it? If I generate XHTML or SVG from a GPL app, must these generated files include an offer to get the source code?
Ajax is the big new thing (see the "GWT" article on the slashdot front page); the very point of Ajax is to run more code on the client-side.
Creating free software is a gift, of sorts. You are providing the fruits of your time and effort for no charge and with few strings attached. Hence, you're "giving it away". And distribution is just another form of use. If I use a piece of software to create another piece of software, or build on it to create a larger "meta-package" - that falls under "distribution" but from my perspective it's just use. Can I use that software to accomplish what I want to accomplish, or not? I am not confused, though my word choice may sometimes be flawed.
My point about the goals being incompatible was simply that they are in partial opposition to each other. Restrictions on the use of a gift limit a gift's usefulness - that is a fact, though the importance of the fact depends a lot on the circumstances. But at some point the granularity of control you assert has to end - and even if a further degree of granularity in the control doesn't significantly impact the actual rights imparted to users of the code, the added complexity in the definition of those rights makes it more complicated to determine whether the software is usable, and more likely that some clause will create an incompatibility with the license, whether that was the intent of the license or not. What happens, for instance, if a GPL-like license asserts that, not only do derivative works need to be likewise-licensed, but also published in a manner and timetable defined by the software authors? (To prevent things like the KHTML/Safari issue, where Apple published their changes to KHTML but didn't do much to do it in a way that the KDE people could actually use...) - then it becomes much harder to use that licensed code, because the group granting the license could change at whim what defines compliance. GPLv3 isn't doing anything like that as far as I know, but it's asserting its protections more aggressively in other areas. I was making a rather abstract point - that attempting to completely protect GPL-style ideals with a rigorously worded license limits the usability of the licensed code, possibly more than the protection is worth. A license has to exist as a compromise between the goals of usability and protection, and it's always going to be an imperfect compromise. I call it an "abstract point" because it's not something I'd relate specifically to one of the new protections of GPLv3 - it's something I'd apply to the overall direction GPLv3 has moved, and what I think that change could imply if taken too far.
As I said, I believe that these issues are going to be resolved, one way or another - and a lot of it may simply be a matter of time, for people to get used to the new GPL.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Yes, distribution is in fact one of the rights held only by the copyright holder and those licensed by the copyright holder. In fact, distribution is one of the rights afforded exclusively to the copyright holder and licensees under US copyright law and under the WIPO and WCT treaties. So if you don't follow this license, you can't _distribute_.
Bitlaw page about copyright
US Copyright Office
Wikipedia page on copyright
Findlaw's copyright page
Wikipedia WIPO page
Dutch copyright law page on Wikipedia (in English)
Japanese copyright law chapter II (note section 3, subsection 3) (translated to English, obviously)
The entry for the terms in the Table of Contents for the GPL v2 is called "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION".
Here's the fourth paragraph of Preamble of the GPL v2, and notice it doesn't say "if you are the one to make the copies you distribute" anywhere:
Notice that it doesn't say you have to have modified it to be bound by the license.
Here's paragraph 5 of the license proper (emphasis mine):
The only reason the license repeatedly says "copy and distribute" is that it is granting both rights. It is not because the two are separable and you must agree to the license only if you do both.
People who received the code under GPL v2 still have every right to copy, modify, and distribute v2 code as v2. The (or any later version) is clearly at the licensee's option.
I fail to see how granting license under a second license (v3) takes away rights granted under the first (v2). Retroactively enforcing something, if that was even a legal possibility in any reasonable jurisdiction, could not be done without revoking the rights already granted.
: (
It appears that the only way to fix that particular loophole would be to change the following:
Instead of having to do only one of the three things, option 2 needs to be made mandatory.
Either that, or argue that the middle-man didn't really count as part of the act of "distribution," and therefore the author still has an obligation to make the source code available to the end user. I certainly hope a court would rule this way, although IANAL so I don't know whether it would or not.
<offtopic>Slashdot needs to allow HTML markup to have attributes -- the list I quoted is supposed to be numbered with lower-case letters, not numbers.</offtopic>
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think you have the right idea in your bolded statement, but the wording could be slightly clearer. It's not so much making non-free software "with" free software as making non-free software "from" free software. The same distinction can be made between "using" and "containing".
There's nothing in the GPL that even hints that you can't compile a closed-source program using gcc. You entirely own the rights to whatever code you run gcc against. You can't make gcc itself closed source, though. That's a fine line of language, but a huge difference in concepts.
I know all this distinction sounds silly to some, but there are (or at least were) things in this world as crazy as compilers which carry a per-project or per-copy royalty on compiled programs or stipulations on how or where the resulting binaries could be used.
Odd numbered licenses are unstable, better wait for version 4.
Did you read the following paragraph from the first link that you posted?
The distribution right grants to the copyright holder the exclusive right to make a work available to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. This right allows the copyright holder to prevent the distribution of unauthorized copies of a work. In addition, the right allows the copyright holder to control the first distribution of a particular authorized copy. However, the distribution right is limited by the "first sale doctrine", which states that after the first sale or distribution of a copy, the copyright holder can no longer control what happens to that copy. Thus, after a book has been purchased at a book store (the first sale of a copy), the copyright holder has no say over how that copy is further distributed. Thus, the book could be rented or resold without the permission of the copyright holder.Emphasis mine. IANAL, but it seems like the premise of the grandparent post is that the person who received the two CD's can distribute (sell) the disk with the binary under the first sale doctrine? Is that not valid?
I call Bullshit
I can resell my computer with my copy of windows and everything. I can resell any of my old CDs even without the case, and there's nothing the RIAA can do to me. That doesn't make me a distributor of windows or a music pirate.
Reselling half of your CDs is like the no jewel case scenario. As long as I'm not making copies myself I should be fine.
In fact, the wikipedia page you linked has:
The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights
Main articles: First-sale doctrine and Exhaustion of rights
Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or CD. In the United States this is known as the first-sale doctrine, and was established by the courts to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand bookstores. [...] It is important to note that the first-sale doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved. It does not permit making or distributing additional copies.
The following paragraph would cover the dividing the package:
In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved.
So, yes the schema described should work (IANAL Obviously). And no, I didn't modify the article.
Yes, distribution is in fact one of the rights held only by the copyright holder and those licensed by the copyright holder.
No, it's not. Making copies is the right held by the copyright holder. Anybody can distribute copies.
Ever heard of Blockbuster? Netflix?
Ever heard of a used book store?
Once a copy is made, you can distribute it at will, without interference of the copyright holder. They've already gotten their money from the copy. They don't get to double-dip and get more money from that same copy, even if the RIAA wished that weren't so.
paintball
The purpose of GPL3 is the same as that of earlier versions: to "get at" folks that Richard Stallman and the FSF do not like. Much of it is spiteful and is directed specifically against people who have been "too successful" -- that is, programmers who have been able to make money by writing and selling software. (Heaven forbid that anyone should be able to be successful in that way.) Alas, it will not affect Microsoft, which pretty much everyone admits will not be harmed by the GPL. It'll only affect little guys like us who otherwise might have a chance. It's ironic, but the FSF has effectively become an ally of Microsoft by going after its nascent competition. Sad.
The GPL may be noble but it certainly is not free. It is a set of rights to which you are bound as a developer that are by no means trivial. Major corporations, like IBM, have teams of GPL-specializing attorneys to ensure compliance with those rights.
At the risk of sounding inflammatory, GPL is, in fact, source code DRM. If you want to use GPL licensed source you have to sign up to rules much as you have to sign up to rules when you but a tune from Apple. Again, I acknowledge that these are noble and generally positive rules but any rules implicitly impinge on freedom.
]{
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Freedom is freedom, not a bunch of rules restricting what you can do.
Stallman and co have become legends in their own lunchtimes, they are so anti capitalist and anti business that they are doomed to fail.
what we have is a bunch of losers that have been made famous by linus who now doesnt want to play the political game that the FSF want to play.
Stallman doesnt really care for freedom, all he cares about is pushing some anarchist agenda to create chaos and prevent people from making a licving writing software. just because stallman hates exchanging software for money is really his and he petty little wanabes problem.
stallman should just start a political party and get out of the software game.
whatever he and the bunch of commies at the fsf do, business will find a way to make a buck on it. and worst of all he is going to create such hurdles and confusion for the movement that wide spread adoption of linux is going to be nearly impossible.
The hatred that drives stallman and his band of merit idiots is quite shameful and a mark against the whole movement. maybe he and his misfits should just retire to cuba.
Stallman has no idea about freedom, just hatred and pathetic politiking. He hasn't brought down microsoft and never will. He should just admit defeat and move on.
gpl gets more and more fascist with every iteration.
lets all salute Stallman, Zeig Heil! Zeig Heil! Zeih Heil!
The impact on Novell, in short: no change from GPLv2.
Novell haters lose.
I have a hard time understanding all the crying over a few additional clauses intended to stop
the breaking of the spirit of the GPL. Actually I am fairly sure that most of the crying is by those who do not even develop software or those who wish to breach the intent of the license, such as certain corporate interests.
You see it works like this, I "myself, me, numero uno etc" the developer is the only one that matters
in this whole deal. If I choose to write software and place it under the GPL2,GPL3,BSD license etc then so be it. If I don't like the way some corporate interest is trying to circumvent the spirit of the license then by all means I will license under GPL3 in a heartbeat.
Got Code?
I have a question. So say I whip up some new fangled Linux distro that I sell support contracts to small businesses. Now say I also whip up a packaging system that happens to infringe on a patent of some small company by the name of PackageSoft. So to ensure my customers and I don't get sued, I license that patent from PackageSoft while I whip up a new packaging system. From my understanding, by doing that I'm immediately banned for life from ever distributing any gpl3 code ever again. Am I understanding that correctly?
Linux is really boring from an os standpoint. Now Plan 9......
"I imagine what the author of said software *is* trying to do is securely establish the software's "free" status once it leaves their desktop."
The problem there is that the "free" in question is after the fact "But I didn't mean that" free. The problem with the "spirit" free as opposed to the "legal" free is that it's a wack-a-mole situation that in the end will complicate the GPL beyound the point of usefulness.
"Would it? The BSD is akin to "You can do anything you want", while the GPL is akin to "You can do anything you want, except killing, raping, robbing or otherwise harming other people"."
So you're saying that MacOSX kills, rapes, robs, and otherwise harms people? Me thinks you don't understand the subtleties of people. That's why slashdot apparently doesn't understand the BSD, and the GPL has to be the "in-your-face" street preacher license.
This comes up over and over; BSD being more free than the GPL. For who? BSD is great if you are a programmer, coder or developer and want to snap up some free code to build on. You can even close it up and prevent anyone else from building on what you build.
But the GPL is about freedom for *users*. If I am using an email app, I know I will always be able to use it and if it gets forked or the license gets changed the existing codebase will most likely be available through continued development by someone.
Users are the people you write software for. There are orders of magnitude more of them than coders. I really couldn't give a damn if a license makes reusing code more difficult for you, I want to know I have the freedom and security to *use* software.
And if the GPL needs a revision to prevent corporations from making an end run around it, essentially nullifying it, I'm all for it.
Very, very wrong. You cannot have freedom without rules and regulations, because without them, people are allowed to take away your freedom.
Those of you familiar with history may recognise this argument, as it is typically used by Governments to justify oppressing their citizens.
Recent years have seen particularly extensive use of "rules and regulations" by Governments of the USA, UK, Australia and others, to help "ensure the freedom" of their citizens by "fighting terrorism".
Don't build a strawman, and either admit that your original process for circumvention of gpl doesn't work, or explain why you think it would works.
A creates derivative, and give A-bin and A-src to B. B gives A-bin it to end-users.
As a end user, you can go to A and ask for the source code. If A doesn't give you the source code, they had NO RIGHT of distributing A-bin.
This is what happens each time a company builds a non-DRM'ed appliance with GPLed code. You almost never buy it from that company, but from a distributor (BestBuy, for instance). Anyway, it doesn't matter. You have been provided with a legal copy (legal in the sense that A distributed it, it was not stolen from their hard drive) of GPL derivative code, hence you can go to through the distributor chain and ask for the source code, as a recipient of such program.
Cheers,
--fred
I think you missed out the word "allegedly" before the word "patented". We've seen nothing concrete from Microsoft in terms of patents. There's also considerable doubt as to whether many of MS' patents would withstand the most cursory review
Tell ya what: I've got a patent on some of the technology in all web browsers, and I'm going to sue you, personally, unless you give me twenty thousand dollars for permission to use my IP. However, I'm not going to what patent, nor am I willing to disclose what it does, or how it applies. Nevertheless, I can promise you that I have a rock solid case, and you're going to be really, really sorry unless you stump up.
Now: Do you suddenly feel like you just lost all your rights under patent law to use a web browser? Because at the moment, Microsoft's case is no stronger than my own.
I like to think that Free Software encourages creativity on all levels, and of course, you should decorate your home in any way you see fit, However, sensible people will install the software first.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
If you sell me a copy of your application to be run over SSH on your machine, I get access to the code if it is under the GPL. I bought the product, I get the code.
Now, I don't get your machine, nor any other binary you haven't sold to me.
I think maybe this is why it is now "possession" rather than "ownership". If you run a webapp and sell me use of it (as in that is my version, my program) then I now posess that copy. If you charge me rent for using your machine but I get to use any program (i.e. I haven't purchased use of a program but use of your machine) then that is not giving me posession of the binary (or your machine).
As a end user, you can go to A and ask for the source code. If A doesn't give you the source code, they had NO RIGHT of distributing A-bin.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Go, read the GPL, and tell me where the GPL requires A to give the end user the source.
It does not.
I'm not building a strawman. You're just making stuff up.
paintball
You don't need shouting at me. Sorry for that strawman thing, you seem to be genuinely confused.
l #WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
:-)
But I am not making up stuff.
Section 3.b:
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,"
Or, just read:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.htm
The relevant text says "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. "
So, what is your position again ?
Cheers,
--fred
The question to ask oneself is, "whose freedom are we speaking of, when talking about 'free software' ?"
- People complaining that GPLv3 is too restrictive and takes away freedom, are seeing it from a company/corporation point of view.
For those people, the perfect license is BSD-like : it gives you access to the source, and it grants you right to do as you please, you as a corporation. It doesn't stops you from selling it to make money out of it. Whereas, GPL comes with too much strings attached.
This parallels back to the SSH example given above : from their point of view those users feel unjustified if users can force them to give away code for a software they aren't even distributing.
It's also companies complain about the difficulty that GPLv3 will pose to their current selling scheme.
- On the other side, you have other peoples opinion : the perfect carricature would be the end user / home hacker. The one that still lives in his mom's basement and like to hack code. Or the PhD in computer science, who would like to modify some real-world softwre to show an actual application of the subject of his thesis. And so on.
Those are the people for whom GPLv3 is the ultimate freedom. Fundamentaly BSD restricts and takes away from their freedom : it takes away their freedom to tinker becuse it give the right to corporation to suddenly close the code from one point onward, it enables for example a company to take some very good BSD code and put it into some kind of inaccessible black box. The enduser lose the possibility to hack the box, even if he legally bought it, and the community as a whole looses the benefit from sharing any improvement made to the code and looses possibility of collaborations.
GPL was initially made to enforce those end-user freedom : the freedom to tinker (study and modify) any code that they run accross.
But as time passes, new loopholes, or new uses have to be taken account of.
There's the problem of DRM (tivoisation) : Code can be released that cannot be compiled back and used to replace the firmware of some set-top box, for lack of digital key to sign the binary. Company, according to GPLv3, should be forced to give the user the necessary means to exert his GPL-granted freedom so he can use home-compiled binaries with his box (for exemple, providing users with their own keys to sign code to run on their own box). It can be seen restrictive for the company (force to release code or keys). But from the end-user's point of view it bringing back the freedom to tinker their own hardware.
There's the problem of patents : code can be published, but can't be used in some jurisdiction because of software patents, unless users pay great amount of money to some patent troll. The GPLv3 is here to ask all users to be treated equally. It's string attached for the company (either refrain from using GPL code, or freely grant usage of patent to all GPL projects). But it's more freedom for the users (freedom to use code without being sued unless pay big money).
Also there's the problem of the service. In the above exemple, in the current states of affair, forcing to release code for something that is remotely ran, and never distributed, can seem rediculous. But once again the point is to protect end-user, from a potential future, where almost everything is rna remotely, and nobody has an access to anything because as those services aren't distributed, the requirements for code doesn't apply.
Today even more people are saying that the future is in online web-applications (Web 2.0 / AJAX / and such.), if they are true and the current GPLv2 remains, we may end up in a world completely consisting of proprietary stuff, just because nobody distributes code and people only access services remotely.
So, yes, ideollogicaly people should have access even to code of services they are merly accessing to. Because, in an indirect way, they are using the code, even if that's remotely.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"So, they have to figure out for themselves how to install the software, but you can't use the law to enforce lock-down of the software."
I don't remember Tivo using the law to stop anyone from figuring out how to run OSS on their machines. They simply refuse to help anyone from doing that.
I still think this Tivo provision will bite the FSF in the ass.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
The distributor is not the end buyer. As I said, IANAL, but I don't believe first sale doctrine has ever meant that a wholesale distributor can, for instance, break street dates, make changes to a product, or change the license between the copyright holder and the first _retail_ buyer.
A distributor is not a buyer. The distributor is, by definition, distributing. Many distribution agreements actually work without the distributor ever owning a copy, even as an intermediary. The distributor just gets a cut of the sale, or distributes for a fee based on the number of copies. Regardless of how the transactions actually happen, the distributor is hardlyu ever considered the "buyer". You don't buy a car as used because the dealer lot owned it before you,`for example.
Of course you think you're right, but... ever heard of a distribution agreement? Ever heard of royalty arrangements? Just because distribution happens under contract doesn't mean just anyone can distribute copies of something.
As for used book stores, they do work under the first sale doctrine, because they are buying from after the first sale. Hence the word "used".
Someone distributing on behalf of the copyright holder or by arrangement with the copyright holder is simply not a buyer, and is not distributing based on some intrinsic right.
In the scenario we're building (Whether you agree with it or not) 3a doesn't apply.
The operative clause is 3a:
3a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
In this scenario, party A has no obligation to offer the source code to anyone else, ever, so long as they accompany every copy with a complete machine-readable version of the source code.
Party A has to be careful to SELL the end result to party B, and put no further restrictions on party B. In that case, party B may resell the just the binary under the first-sale doctrine.
The catch here is that party A now has no protection from party B redistributing the source, should party B so choose, only a general view that it is against party B's best interests to do so. Pretty risky business if you're party A.
As always, IANAL, and this is not legal advice.