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

Can they do that?

[venicebeach]

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?

Retroactively?

[Mr.Ned]

"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?

Why GPL v3?

[MS-06FZ]

Do we REALLY need a GPL v3? Probably - v2 was written in a time in which the scenario of the GPL being tested in court was rather more remote. One of the important reasons for v3 is to further lawyer-proof the license.

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.

Re:There is no "retroactive" change

[Hijacked Public]

Maybe, to assure everyone, Novell could adopt the slogan "Do No Evil". You people fell pretty hard for that one last time.

Re:What happened to web apps?

[cyclop]

And I've never understood why this is bad.

A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution. The code runs on the web server and never leaves it. So why should I bother about it? In what sense it's different from me modifying a GPL program on my machine only and having my friends using it on my machine?

Adoption?

[Bruce Perens]

I don't think they have to worry about adoption. They have all of the FSF-owned software going to GPL3, which means that you can't really make a distribution without accepting GPL3. And most likely things like Samba, MySQL, Solaris and other Sun offerings, essentially anything owned by people who don't want the trick that Novell and Microsoft pulled to apply to them. I think that will be a lot of people. In the end, it might even be the kernel team. But that will take 1 to 2 years to play out.

Bruce

Re:Sadly...

[init100]

Freedom under the GPL has always been complicated, because it means free-as-in-FSF. As I've observed before, that isn't the same as "free" by any English language definition, which would be more akin to a BSD-style licence.

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". The GPL is free, it just tries to stop people from restricting other peoples' freedom.

Re:I thought it was out already?!

[osu-neko]

So? does a low slashdot id equate to a knowledgeable, reasoned poster? I think not.

Sounds like a good metric to me! ;)

On the original topic: There's no need to rush GPLv3 out the door. There's a perfectly good GPLv2 out there serving the community as we speak, so why rush? Might as well take the time to make sure everything is the best it can be before release. It's not a matter of being "complete" -- the first draft was a complete document. It's a matter of being as good as it can be. If there was nothing like it out there already, that'd be a good reason to release quickly, but since there is, might as well take all the time desired, heck, take all the time in the world, it's not like we need a GPLv3, the GPLv2 is perfectly serviceable.

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

[raehl]

The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.

You have this backwards. The requirement that the patent license is provided to everyone *IS* the protection against patent suits for using GPLv3 software.

If a company distributes software under GPLv3, then elects to sue someone for using that software in violation of a patent, they open themselves up to being sued for violating the copyrights in that software by other contributors. Because the contributors have said 'You may not copy my code if you don't give everyone a patent license to use it and the derivative works.'

Separately, you are also only looking at half of the equation. Some users who are willing to pay to not be sued may lose out on being able to have the software. BUT, that doesn't matter any more than it matters that I've 'lost' the ability to run Windows unless I buy it. What *IS* important is that the contributors to free software have the copyrights in THEIR work protected. They have agreed to distribute their work to the community so long as it can be freely redistributed. If you do not prohibit distribution of software with a patent license, you are allowing companies to take the free software, modify it with patent-encumbered software, then UN-freely redistribute it.

This strikes to the very core of what free software is. If you're going to use free software, then you need to provide free software. Patent encumbered software isn't free, and just like we wouldn't allow GPL software to end up in a proprietary binary sold for profit without source, EVEN THOUGH it denies some users that software, we shouldn't let it end up in patent-encumbered source either, EVEN THOUGH it also denies some users that software.

Preventing non-free software from being created with free software is the whole point, isn't it?

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

[mrchaotica]

some major projects... in no special order examples are WINE, KDE, QT, Java and Firefox, GCC, Gnome (I assume we will have a LGPLv3, too)

GCC is the biggie there; since it's an official GNU project (which means its copyright is owned by the FSF) you know it's going to become GPL v3 as soon as the license is ready.