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."
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.
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?
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
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
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."
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.