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."
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?
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
Hey, release early, release often.
(Which seems as good a time as any to link to the UPS Debugger Song, better known as "Just one more hack and then I'll put it on the 'net".)
"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 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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Oh darn, sorry wrong URL. Try here
Bruce Perens.
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.
Life is Reality
hmm: "Seumas (6865)"
You're kidding, right?
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
'Secondly, does any know if this removes the provision that I have to give up my private encryption keys if I use GPLv3 software?'
If by 'my private encryption keys' you mean encyption keys used to restrict the software that can be run on an operating system or embedded device then I hope not. As far as I know those are the only keys that any draft of the GPLv3 ever required disclosed.
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
hmm: "Seumas (6865)"
You're kidding, right?
So? does a low slashdot id equate to a knowledgeable, reasoned poster? I think not.
Anyway, not everything on Slashdot is worth reading by everybody. Each person has his own areas of interest. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy with the GPLv2 and I've decided to stick with it for my personal software releases, so I'm not really following what's happening with GPLv3. As a result, just like the GP, I didn't know it was still a draft either, and I too think it's surprising it's still not complete.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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."
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.
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.
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.
'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
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.
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.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
'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
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.
http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ It actually works quite well.
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
Bruce Perens.
IANAL, but OMG FFS FSF, GPL3 can't work AB. AFAIUI, we need GPL3 AEAP, if Novell/MS's deal 2B AMF.
Amen to that.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
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
Anonymous coward indeed. And what would you have the community do? Sit on its hands and hope extra hard that Msft doesn't become emboldened with its patent play?
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
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.
It doesn't work that way. The license on the kernel doesn't effect the rest of the system. The license on the C library would be LGPL3, which isn't harmful to anyone but Novell as far as I can tell - Tivo might have to make some changes, but they would be able to live with GPL3. The license on GCC and the rest are the same, it doesn't hurt you unless you're out to do something really developer-hostile. I can't see that the community are going to be motivated to fork away from viable projects using GPL3.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Long Answer: Nooooooooooo!
</Anakin>
to limit the freedom of others
Yes if you mean their freedom to limit your freedom, then "all that legalese" has indeed been added to stop them exercising that "freedom". You are a troll (and a dumb one at that).
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
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.
You're probably just joking, but just to be clear, in 1991 the web didn't even exist (or hardly existed). Trying to predict how the future will look like is awfully hard, especially in an advancing field as IT. V2 worked great for many years, but not as good now, so I'd say it's more appropriate to call it an update rather than a fix for an originally "faulty" version.
So hopefully the third version will be used for at least 15 years ahead, when a new updated is prompted, in order to include "use by AI's" or "use through telepathy" or whatever that no one managed to predict this time.
Life is Reality
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)
Well, since I'm neither a FSF leader nor member of the OpenSSH team, I don't really see that the behaviour in your examples should be any reflection on me or my post. I guess YMMV. It's a free world... mostly. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"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.
"It's also quite trendy and fashionable these days to attack the FSF and the GPL for "not being free" by some other definition that people keep changing."
No, it's the same, old, everyday definition of freedom that been around for hundreds of years.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Well, you never demonstrated that you aren't beating your wife, and I say you are! Now the burden on you is to prove that you're not. What, you're not married? Prove that, too! I say you're beating the poor woman! :-)
You have the new license draft. Do you see any thing that says you have to give up keys? Show me the language, and tell me why you think it says so.
Sorry, but "Linux said so before he even saw this draft" isn't going to hold much water.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Not to mention that it's actually important to get this right. If there's a bug in the code you released, you simply fix the bug and everything's fine. If there's a big fat loophole in the license you released, you're screwed.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
Why rush it? Let them take their time...
I totally agree... the longer they wait the more irrelevant the whole GPLv3 seems which in my opinion is a very good thing.
Unlike some of my other posts, I'm not going to call you a cocksucking idiot.... :) (really, it's a joke)
Why does everyone look at this in isolation? The whole question of a loophole seems to be already answered by the fact that this license is version 3 of the GPL. Of course it's not going to be "perfect" (according to Dick Stallman), but it's not like they won't be able to make version 4.... version 5.... version 6.... version 7....
This particular problem crops up a lot here. People see things as interesting curiousities and ignore them in their actual context and because of that mindset they come up with the most ridiculous conclusions.
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.
Will you all be sending in your $699 cheques to MicroSCOft soon?
No, none of us will. Any threats Ballmer makes along these lines constitute nothing more than baseless sabre rattling...and your own threat here is equally baseless fearmongering.
The FSF talks about freedom, and yet you're here issuing fear-based threats about what will happen to us if we don't accept a repressive license which has already been rejected by the kernel developers and others.
I can really see the freedom there. Go and crawl back under your rock...I just wish to God that Stallman would do the same.
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.
And how often we see people defending it writing under the label of Anonymous Coward. Truly lends credibility to the idea that the FSF are worth defending, doesn't it?
As for how the other definition keeps changing; it doesn't. My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:-
THAT is free software. NOT copyleft. Other than the conditions on inclusion of the notice, the above is also met in every point by the BSD license, which is why I support it, and why I have never at a gut level supported the GPL.
Stallman's redefinition of the word "free" is a classic tactic straight out of the cult leadership playbook...it's called "introducing loaded language." It refers to the practice of taking common words from the English language and redefining them in such a way that, for people inside the cult, the word begins to mean something very different to its' definition in the minds of the general population.
Indeed. Plus another option will become open once GPLv3 is finalised, and once a Solaris kernel is available under GPLv3.
Right: the GPL v3 isn't going to fix TiVo's abuse of the loophole in v2, because it's already too late. That's exactly the problem I was talking about, and why it's best to make sure there aren't any loopholes left in v3, so there can't be any more abuses! Is that really that hard for you to understand?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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?
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
At that point, Solaris becomes another Free Software platform to run the GNU System (which is the right name for "GPL userland"). Right now, today, it's a platform to run it, just less free.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
]{
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......
Is it really "less free?" I thought free was free. The CDDL just reads like a bastardized LGPL with patent termination language.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Speech is a fundamental freedom. Assembly and petition are fundamental freedoms. Having complete read and write access to source code someone else developed without your input is just a Nice Thing.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
I didn't really consider Sun as wanting to be a sincere partner in the Free Software community, due to their starting out by making incompatible licenses. I think they figured that out now. And Jonathan doesn't say stupid stuff about us all the time any longer. So, I am waiting for them to drop the CDDL, since even they seem to think it's a dead-end now. So it might be moot whether it's free or not.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I remember reading somewhere (the OpenSolaris forums??), around the time Danese Cooper shot her mouth off about the CDDL at some convention or another, that the main reason for going with the CDDL was a lack of GPLv3 and its more definite patent language. Not sure if it's true or not, but Sun seems to be warming up to it a bit (bet anti-GPL loons like Schilling are going apeshit).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yes, it is so hard to understand.
There will never be a GPL with no loopholes because the GPL exists in a continuosly evolving world and must also continue to evolve if it is to serve it's original purpose of preserving and extending software freedoms for computer users. The business world is full of clever and unscrupulous people who have no respect for the wishes of the developers who contribute.
They see FOSS as both a challenge to their existing business and an unexploited treasure trove ripe for pillaging. One day one will find a way around GPL3, and the community will need to evolve a GPL4 in response.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
Work on the GPL is very hard. It's not as if the Gnu debugger even supports English properly, so all work must be done in assembler. Whereas on something trivial like an OS kernel, you can debug in a high level language.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Sounds like a good metric to me! ;)
/days earlier, you could have got id 2600.
You know, if you'd have registered a few hours
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
"the only keys"?
Do you know what "software" is? It is any code, program, text, or data file including music, movies or anything else used on any and all "operating system"s and "embedded device"s including computers, tape players, DVD players or any other similar device.
There are no other use for encrytion keys whatsoever except for use on the "only" use you described as being the one that you would have to give up your keys for! Securing ("restricting") "software" on "devices" or "OSes".
You basicly answered "yes you will have to give up your encryption keys always".
You might want to narrow that statement down to something meaningful...
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
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".
Perhaps in your world. In my world encryption has hundreds of legitimate uses. Signing binaries to prevent end users from running any software and/or content they please on the hardware they purchased is only one of the many uses of encryption/signing/keys and it isn't among the legitimate uses.
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!
My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:
... subtracts from the GPL, not adds to it. The freedom you describe stops with one "generation" of distribution. So the developer is free with BSD licensed software, but since the software can be distributed as proprietry, the end user does not necessarily get the benefits of any "freeness" of the software. With the GPL, essentially the software itself is kept "Free" and the end user therefore has the benefits of that freedom.
Actually, your third point:
Places no conditions on redistribution or end use, of any kind.
Presumably you are a developer. BSD gives you personally more freedom, but that does not really mean it is more free. It depends on who the intended beneficiary of the freedom is.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
No, I don't think that's loaded language - I just think it's a difference in interpretation of the word "free".
As far as I can tell, what you mean when you talk about "free software" is that the freedom that's being talked about applies to the user (/distributor/developer/...); so for you, software is not free when the user does not have the right to use it (and I mean use in a general sense, not just as in "run it") in any way he sees fit.
When RMS talks about "free software", on the other hand, he literally means that the software *itself* is free (as in libre, not gratis) - and that necessarily means that there have to be some restrictions on what people can do with it, since freedom (of the software) doesn't mean anything if it can just be taken away.
I'm not saying either interpretation is a priori more valid, but you shouldn't accuse him of using loaded language, since just like his isn't any more valid than yours, yours isn't any more valid than his, either. They both make sense (linguistically speaking, at least).
butter the donkey
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
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 ]
The license on the C library would be LGPL3, which isn't harmful to anyone but Novell as far as I can tell.
Do you mean GPLv2 software can't link with an LGPLv3 version of libc? I actually think that could be really bad. I'm sure Novell's not the only one with GPLv2 code out there. In general, it's one thing that really annoys me about the new draft process. Nobody's mentioning anything about the LGPL. Is LGPLv3 compatible with GPLv2? Is LGPLv2 compatible with GPLv3? Things like that are *really* important IMO.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
No. Don't worry. The whole point of LGPL is that it can be linked to software with any license. That will be continued with LGPL3. LGPL3 will be like GPL2-with-exception, which has been used recently instead of LGPL - the text will be almost identical to GPL3 except that you will be permitted to link software under other licenses.
I guess some folks see the draft process as inaccessable. It was pretty easy to get on the committee. I actually dropped off of the draft committee, because it is a heck of a lot of work and I have to focus on outward-facing activities to make the best use of my time.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You know, if you'd have registered a few hours /days earlier, you could have got id 2600.
The sad fact is, I actually read for quite a while before getting around to registering. And "2600" really isn't my style. I'd have much rather had "6502".
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
The whole point of LGPL is that it can be linked to software with any license.
Well, I know the LGPL will allow me to link with any license, but will the GPL allow me? My understanding of the GPL is that everything you link with it needs to be GPL-compatible. Considering that the GPLv2 software cannot be relicensed as GPLv3 (unless the author agrees) and the GPLv3 software cannot be relicensed as GPLv2, how is it possible to link with a different version of the LGPL?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.