Slashdot Mirror
RMS Explains GPLv3 Draft 3
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "A transcript is now online of a talk Richard Stallman gave in Brussels earlier this week about the discussion draft 3 of GPLv3. Among other things, he explained how it will address the Novell-MS deal, from Novell's point of view and from Microsoft's, and he explained how the tivoisation clause was narrowed to make it more acceptable in the hope that it will be used by more people. After the talk he also gave an interview, and yesterday, draft 2 of LGPLv3 was released."
Draft 2 looks more acceptable than draft 1 and hence more people may adapt it...
- Yes, but does it run Lunix?
Sorry, telling me that the GPL is obvious and that I'm stupid for not understanding it won't save me if I run into legal problems associated with the GPL. And I will have to spend money on an IP attorney to help me. It would be stupid to think that, without legal training and a license in my state, I know the law and can interpret a contract accordingly.
Yeah, it would be nice if it were so easy that I didn't need a lawyer. Then again, if laws and contracts were so obvious, why are there courts?
Incorrect answer (most of the time): Because everyone is dishonest and trying to screw the other guy.
My biggest question is whether GPL3 will be compatible with the many existing "GPL-esque" free licenses [1], which are currently GPL-incompatible, because they contain patent-nullification clauses?
There is a lot of software out there being developed under licenses which aren't compatible with the GPL, because the GPL doesn't allow patent nullification clauses -- this is dangerous, because the purpose of these clauses is to keep someone from slipping code into a major project that they have a patent for, and then torpedoing the whole thing later on when it's crept into wider use. I don't know if this issue just wasn't foreseen when GPL2 was written up, but I can't think of a more pressing issue at the moment.
Yeah, "Tivo-ization" and web services may keep some software out of the hands of the public, but they're not nearly as downright dangerous as submarine patents are.
[1] Examples: IBM Public License 1.0, Common Public License 1.0, Apache License v2, or any of the other licenses where the FSF cheerfully comments "We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If it needs to be explained to intelligent people, it's too complicated.
With the wonderful growth of open source software and many using the GPL (v2) what is so wrong with it they need to make a new version. For the past couple months that I've been following everything has been pretty much bad concerning V3.
RMS: Any response?
(EMS takes pulse of GPL3, shakes his head)
RMS: Alright, let's try watering down some of the shriller provisions. CLEAR! (RMS applies paddles to GPL3's chest again. It twitches, then lays still)
RMS: Anything?
EMS (peering into GPL's eyes) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any Linus signs whatsoever.
Crow T. Trollbot
As it is currently drafted, the GPL v3 has a patent-nullification clause itself: section 11. Furthermore, it allows under section 7 that derivative works have "Additional Terms" that are not in the GPL, but not incompatible with the idea of Free Software. The goal of section is to have less free software licenses that are GPL-incompatible; which directly addresses your question
Sadly, the Apache License v2 will probably remain incompatible with the GPL, even GPL v3. As desribed in the Rationale document, section 4.4, not because of the patent termination clause; but because Apache License v2's section 9 states that downstream redistributors must agree to indemnify upstream licensors under certain conditions.In any case, if you have comments on the latest(L)GPL v3 draft, the FSF's comment page is the best place to do it. The reason this whole GPL v3 thing takes so much time (the first draft for GPL v3 was published Monday, January 16, 2006!) is that the FSF takes serious comments seriously (and of course, because of certain vendors' deals as well).
FSF have tried all along to achieve compatibility with the Apache licence. The current status is that the patent language is now similar enough for the two licences to be compatible in that respect, but a new problem has been found which would make them incompatible. I expect a solution is being looked for.
This is discussed in the transcript in the section Patent retalisation and the Apache licence (the transcript is split into sections and there is a menu for easy navigation and linking).
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The Novell - Microsoft deal was the best thing that could have happened to encourage free software developers to switch to using GPL v3.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
RMS often says what he wants GPL to mean. That is very different from what the legal document means when interpreted as a legal document. This is the source of most of the confusion around most versions of the GPL.
If you read the GPL faq (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) you get FSF's==RMS's interpretation of the GPL, but since that faq is not actually part of the GPL it is not binding on anyone's interpretation of the GPL.
A classic case in GPL2 is the handling of soft vs hard linking which is often debated. This is not mentioned in the GPL, though it is in the LGPL and faq - niether of which are binding on the GPL.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
this is dangerous, because the purpose of these clauses is to keep someone from slipping code into a major project that they have a patent for, and then torpedoing the whole thing later on when it's crept into wider use.
IANAL, but I seem to remember reading some time long ago that if a person or company were to do that then they would, in the US at least, end up fscking up any patent case they'd make. Probably the worst they could manage would be to require the project to stop using the patented code.
- These characters were randomly selected.
In that case, you might want to try complaining about copyright law. Though what copyright tries to achieve (chopping ideas into discreet units and assigning ownership[1]) is so different from how ideas otherwise exist I can't imagine the law every being simple.
In many cases, the GPL makes dealing with copyright less complicated - because it's a de facto standard, because you can focus on the four freedoms instead of the minutiae of the law, because you don't have to hire a lawyer every time you want to let someone use your software, because if you do let someone modify your software you don't have to worry about them turning around and suing you for using with the modified version, because there is a community to provide you with support and might even help you if your license is violated.
[1] I am aware that copyright is supposed to apply to the representation of an idea, not the idea itself. If you can figure out a way to reliabily differentiate the two, maybe you do know how to simplify copyright.
From the Groklaw interview:
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. I haven't laughed so hard in my life.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Are shavers open sourced yet. He could use one or is he growing it out until Hurd is complete.
GPLv3 is intended to keep a company from inserting covered by one or more of their patents from then suing downstream users of the modified code. As such it effectively lets them waive SELECTED patents.
But does it also prevent them from suing somebody downstream who inserts (or uses/distributes code where some middle-man inserted) additional code that infringes on OTHER patents than the ones covering what they themselves inserted?
IMHO it SHOULD do the former and not the latter. Otherwise distributing GPLv3ed code would effectively wipe out a company's entire patent portfolio - which would inhibit companies who have and value such a patent collection (if only for defense against others) from using GPLv3.
But IANAL - and haven't even studied the draft. Can someone who understands law AND has studied the draft tell us if this pitfall was avoided?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I do so wish posters (and/or editors) would make sure the article links make sense in context... "discussion draft 3 of GPLv3" links to the transcript? How about "A transcript" linking to the transcript and "the discussion draft 3 of GPLv3" linking to the GPL discussion draft?
</rant>
This actually has a few more conditions because we were trying to avoid covering certain other things, for instance, consider a patent parasite, one of those companies that has only one business which is to go around threatening people with patent law suits and making them pay. When this happens, the businesses that are attacked often have no choice but to pay them off. We don't want to put them in a position of being GPL violators as a result. So we put in a condition: "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a business of distributing software". Patent parasites don't. As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph. I'm a little nervous about "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a business of distributing software", does that mean all the parasite has to do is put up a site that says "download a copy of ls for only $10" and they're a distributor? Ok, that's a bit extreme but a lot of patent parasites are dying software companies who would likely be considered distributors. As well it's possible for this clause to be exploited. What's to stop the next SCO from selling all their patents to a patent parasite who in return gives them a license? They've sidestepped the clause entirely and the parasite can threaten to sue whoever they want (except Novell & customers).
Really if one company is attacked for patent infringement on a piece of GPL'd software than every user is vulnerable and it's only a matter of time before the parasite makes the rounds through all the companies. I think the old form was better since it didn't allow a distributor to back down and pay them off, perhaps giving the community to gather and fight back. Of course the old version also allows an unscrupulous competitor to give their patents to a shell company with the understanding that the shell company will put the competition out of business...
Damn, patents suck.
I stole this Sig
It's not the Apache patent clause that now bars compatibility, it's an indemnity clause.
GPLv3 has been made compatible with Apache's patent clause.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
What is the reason they want Apache compatibility?
Am I the only one who sees "RMS" and thinks "Root mean square"?
Even with a seemingly simple set of conditions (i.e., the license terms), someone will figure out a nuance or caveat that will challenge the conventional interpretation, and gum up the works for everyone else. Regulations (or licenses) are principally legal matters, and as such, precedents and case studies are key to understanding the bounds of their tenets.
Here's what we use in the nuclear industry to clear the air - as much as can be achieved, anyway. An industry group, like the Electric Power Research Institute or Nuclear Energy Institute, develops a guidance document that defines key terms, and most importantly, illustrates and amplifies the tenets of the regulation. These illustrations include case studies and examples that challenge the rule well beyond the obvious application. Ultimately, such a document may get accepted or endorsed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Regulatory Guide or other guidance document.
The parallels here are that:
- As technology and understanding of the license (or regulation) evolves, there will eventually be new gray areas discovered. This is true in both fields;
Where the situational similarity fails is that there is no overarching authority to endorse (or deny) the final version of the GPL. So the best that could be accomplished really would be to have a rigorous FAQ or guidance document as possible - one that anticipates the future as best as its preparers can.Science never settles, never rests.
heinousjay thinks this is funny:
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
What's not funny is how the console may use you. The point of software freedom is to avoid malicious use by the software's owner of the type seen in cell phone tapping. If the software is not free, you can't know what the device is doing. Giving your money to people who abuse you is a bad idea. The viewpoint is extreme, but consistent and sensible.
Now, something that is funny is Steve-o's iPod and Google "brainwash". The only reason he does not like either is because they represent another company's product. His language is just as disrespectful as his company and the picture drawn is simple bully.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
the GPLv3 has a similar clause. But it also contains the no further restrictions clause which stops the patent nullification.
It appears the GPlv3 does the same so unless they have some specific clause allowing it, it could be in the same boat.
When is the FSF going to specifically address these two issues?
(1) No clause in the license prevents patented code from slipping into the codebase. It is a theoretically impossible task.
(2) The proprietary companies that want a kind of cooperative coexistence with open source, the users and customers - will be reluctant creating, distributing and interoperating with GPLv3 code.
YET ...
we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products.
So which way is it? Are you giving or just not giving for everyone?
= Grow a brain...
Caveat: I'm not an expert on exactly how the TiVo operates below the basic bash and web server add-ons that I use on my Series 1
With my semi-informed viewpoint, I can see why TiVo did what they did.
TiVo wasn't really ever in the hardware business, they provide subscription services. If I can modify the kernel I can intercept the low level calls that retrieve the unit number and steal the service by providing a different one.
Then the next step is to let you run a modified kernel, but not let you use the service any longer. I have a feeling that there would still be a tarring and feathering in the works should someone suggest that.
Building out the infrastructure to counter theft of service on the TiVo side of the connection would probably be cost-prohibitive.
TiVo was an awesome product... I still love my TiVo. I would hate to have squashed it before it began because they couldn't afford to counter theft of service.
Just my $.02
-Pyrroc
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
The average end-consumer simply doesn't have the time to learn enough computer science to eye-verify every line of code in every piece of software they run. ... It's not a morality question. It's a risk-reward question.
None of us has the time to verify everything, but it's much easier in the free software world. Distributions like Debian do a lot of the work for you, but the same auditing community that exists for non free software also works on free software. People are constantly monitoring their network traffic for anything strange. You can be sure that the Wintel press would be the first to sound alarms if anything got by Debian or any other major gnu/linux distribution. You can also be sure that the distribution would not deny a real problem. As an end user, I know that each and every package I install has a hash that matches what the distribution says it should be. No comprehensive list like that exists in the non free world - all of their checks are about making sure you have paid them recently.
I can't bring myself to whole-kool-aid on the morality argument
Demanding respect is not suicide. Free software use is not so much a condemnation of non free software immorality as it is about demanding respect for yourself. The only way you can use non free software is if you don't care about the malicious things it's owners have and might do to you. These days, using free software is easier and more productive than using non free.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
These days, using free software is easier and more productive than using non free.
Not if you want to play games, which you might recall was the subject of this thread.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Let's see if I understand his logic right. Is he saying that using Tetris is ethical only if I use it to make LOCKJAW? So what about songs or movies? How would one make a free replacement for one of those?
Game consoles does not run code that is not signed by manufacturer, thus making it impossible to ever run Free Software.What free hardware is designed to sit on top of a television, receive input from four USB or Bluetooth gamepads, and play interactive video games? Do enough Free games support this play method?
Another thing to ponder: Given the incompatibility between Creative Commons licenses and GNU licenses due to the credit removal clause of all Creative Commons licenses (see my Wikimedia Commons user page), what license should be used for a work that contains significant parts that are a computer program and significant parts that are not a computer program, such as a video game?
- "...think of free speech, not free beer."
- Zero indexing the four freedoms
- GNU is a recursive acronym
- copyleft
I wish RMS would spend a lot less time working on grammatical cleverness. It's made worse by his compulsive need to explain his jokes (to let you know just how clever he is) every single time he speaks. Get to the point already!EMS (peering into GPL's eyes) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any Linus signs whatsoever.
No Linus signs? Didn't Linus say that draft 2 was enough better than draft 1 that he was actually considering using it?
Like last Thursday or so?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
by lawyers for laymen
Is that even possible? Wouldn't they get disbarred (or defrocked or whatever its called) for talking in plain english?
I suppose that a lawyer could *pretend* to speak so as to be intelligible to a laymen, for several thousand $$$ per hour... but would that count?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It's their Rights Management System. No kidding. It's DRM. This is software that takes away your rights. :-)
Stalin !! He LIVES !!!
Hmmm, you and Steve can go be "productive" with Xbox, yet another second rate thing. Don't tell him I said that, or he'll smash you with something heavy.
I'll dream about Playstation 3 and ID Games while I slave away on other things without time, money or inclination to shop. Tuxcart, PlanetPenguin, Quake2 and other toys do it for me for now.
I don't know what RMS plays other than world hero and global liberation but he's having more fun than the rest of us put together.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If their business model depends on denying their users the Four Freedoms that the GPL is intended to guarantee those users receive, then perhaps Tivo should write their *own* software instead of taking Free software that the *authors* released under a GPL license?
Tivo has no legal right to copy and distribute the software unless they wrote it themselves, or they have a license (in this case the GPL) from the copyright holders of that software.
Tivoisation is an abuse of the users, because they don't receive the freedoms that the AUTHORS of that software intended them to receive, as compensation for allowing Tivo to use it. Tivo wants to take other people's work and use it, but violate the spirit of the agreement. Well fuck them. I'll release my software under the GPLv3 in the future and nobody will be able to Tivoise it. Or backstab it with patent-licensing deals like Novell/MS.
> yet another second rate thing. Don't tell him I said
> that, or he'll smash you with something heavy.
My god, you are a riot
> I'll dream about Playstation 3 and ID Games while
> I slave away on other things without time, money
> or inclination to shop
"Shop"? Shop for what? Are you saying you're too good to buy the stuff the rest of us do?
> Tuxcart, PlanetPenguin
Oh yes, an absolute riot
> I don't know what RMS plays other than world hero and global liberation
> but he's having more fun than the rest of us put together.
You should seek medical attention.
nobody say you to use free software and when i say free software i say gnu general public license, if don't like you use not freesoftware, for example bsd. again about what is freesoftware or not lynksys for his own wifi wrt54g does not give copy of openwrt that use. the same for gnu/linux this is a violation of gnu general public license. the same dlink for openwrt, fon.... and they lock ssh and all the ports to don't use by terminal. they modify, change... but don't give copy of gnu/linux and openwrt and this is one of 4 points of gpl. if you modify, change ,distribute, you must give the changes
paolodelbene@gmail.com
rms just said many times that where the freedom goes the software go. and this is necessary to distribute the free software.. you can take, use for youlsef, for your business at home/office... but if you do changes and then you want distribute in the net, put on cvs,ftp,http, hard drives, pens usb..... and so on you must give too the changes hereinclosed in the source code. you are free to use or not... but nobody say you to use free software. if don't lke gpl, please use bsd license or others that give you the permission to use the software, but in the future you could have the problems that microsoft and apple are creating with the kernel mach and freebsd. look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_os_x and apple is violating the license for gcc,gdb,ed,vi,vim,emacs, gnumake, gzip etc..... because it works on free software it does modification, and don't put on cd/dvd the source code as requested from the fsf.org and gnu general public license. if you work on gnu free software you must distribute the source code. again the os mac os x is gnu/mach, why to pay 130 euros for an os that you find on the net ? look at the university of utah for kernel mach and to the university of berkeley for bsd or any other ftp, http... why to accept a false when all is just available and if you want you can give the same money as contribute to developers than to pay apple and in the future too microsoft. my best to all from irixsgi