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."

Comments

"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

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.

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[Bruce Perens]

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.

You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone. The point is that you can't create privileged groups like "people who have paid lots of money for protection" who have more rights than others.

I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.

Bruce

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[F452]

Would be interesting to read that. I did a quick search and turned up this byte interview from 1986 (it references publication of the GNU Manifesto in Dr. Dobbs in 1985):

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html

Which now I'll have to invest some time in reading. :-)

There is no "retroactive" change

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

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?

Re:So I no longer have to give up my private keys?

[Bruce Perens]

You never had to give up your keys. That's just FUD. I've written a longer explanation here.

Bruce

Re:I thought it was out already?!

[cronius]

This is a not a program you can change if it's broken, this is a license that could possibly have far reaching effect on the nature of free software. The last license was released over 15 years ago, you want to make it right so that v3 can last another 15 years or more. The license is complicated, and quite political, there are no easy answers.

Pluss, they want to take their time so that anyone who wants can voice their oppinion and be heard. Why rush it? Let them take their time and make it right, the first time.

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

Yes. What RMS was asking for was whether GPL3 code should include pernicious terms, from the start, that apply to people who had already committed a deal like the Novell-Microsoft one on GPL2 code but not yet on GPL3 code. The other option is to wait until said scoundrels commit the same deal on GPL3 code.

Bruce

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

You missed the part about "upgrading Linux to GPL3". Some people out there think Linus controls the license to all of what goes into a distribution, not just the kernel.

Everybody: Linux is just the kernel. Linus does not control anything else, and has less than absolute control over that.

Bruce

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

Linus specificaly stated that he is against using GPL v3 in its current form.

Actually, he probably meant draft-2 form. The current form didn't exist when he said that :-) .

Besides, specific objections are more helpful. Like he is against some DRM-related terms. I have gone over some of those terms here, you might find that useful.

Bruce

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

I'm going to have to correct myself. The specific sentence in square brackets, which means it's proposed but not accepted, would exempt anyone who has made a Novell-Microsoft-like agrement before today from enforcement of the terms even on GPL3 software. So, FSF is really asking "should we let Novell and Microsoft off, and just apply this to future violators?" I don't think they'll do that.

Bruce

Re:Good luck.

[Bruce Perens]

but it isn't possible to run a gpl2 userland without the linux kernel.

Say what? Where do you think it was developed before Linux came along?

On Sun. RMS used to program on a Sun. GNU LIBC existed before it was ported to Linux. GCC did. Emacs did. Most of the userland did. Linus Torvalds did the last part, not the first.

I can think of a lot of kernels besides HURD and Minix. You could start with BSD and Solaris, but that's hardly the end of the list.

Bruce