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."
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."
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).
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...
Unfortunately, the legal landscape is what's too complicated here. A certain level of complexity is necessary in anything intended to be functional on that landscape.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Holy crap! That would mean your project goes from "First Commit to CVS" to "License Change"!
KUDOS!
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
The GPLv2 is one of the simplest, straightforward software licenses I've ever seen. It uses plain English, virtually no legal jargon, and even includes a summary. And I always see people talking about GPL-this and GPL-that who don't appear to have even read it, much less understood it.
Now the GPLv3 is more complicated than the GPLv2, but the main reason for it having to be explained is because so many people already have misconceptions about it from the rumour mill and because of its novelty. I wouldn't say that the necessity for an explanation is inherently a cause for concern.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I disagree completely.
Yes, the GPLv2 was/is a great license, but it isn't perfect. The FSF's main concern is that certain companies start to distribute software/devices that is in accordance with the letter of the GPLv2, but not with its spirit (specifically freedoms 2 and 3: the freedom to change the program to your own needs, and distribute changes). Example: Tivo.
Also, GPLv2 was written at a time where software patents weren't considered possible, even in the worst nightmares. Today, they are a reality in many parts of the world.
Besides Tivoisation and patents, there are some other good things in the GPL v3, as it is currently drafted. It will be no longer necessary to provide source code via snail mail if you distribute binaries without source. This is the 21st century, providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge will be sufficient.
Yes, there is resistance to the GPL v3, especially to the earlier drafts (drafts 1 and 2). That's what this long comment period is about. The FSF is taking serious comments seriously. Also, there was opposition in 1991 about GPL v2 as well. Some resistance doesn't mean the whole thing sucks.
And if the GPL v2 continues to be fine by you, you are free to continue to use GPL v2 for your own software. Or dual license "GPL v2 or v3" if you want to stay compatible with GNU software. The FSF would argue that "GPL v2, or at the user's option, any later version" is even better.
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.
GPL is a Free Software license, it does not care about "open source" or "growth" at all. Tivoisation and patent deals make existing GPLv2 software effectively non-free software for end users. GPL is for people who cares about end users using their software. They want a license that would guarantee that no one could distribute their software without giving end users their Four Essential Freedoms they deserve. Use a different license if you don't belive end users deserves their Essential Freedoms.
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
If it needs to be explained to intelligent people, it's too complicated.
Maybe. But legalese is what you get when you take English and try to make it into an exact language, like say a programming. Unfortunately general conversation is absolutely horrible at this, so it is a lot like putting a square peg in a round hole.
That leads to a very odd style with a lot of defintions, not just in the front but through-out the document. Further, unlike say source code where the code is the actual execution, you need to spell everything in detail so that a court can narrow its way down to a detail and say true or false, or hopefully be so clear it never gets there. It certainly tends to get wordy, and information density is very low. Most people fail to see the nuances and see repetition without meaning and react with "All that to say so little?"
Third, you have to assume bad faith on the other party. Some of the paragraphs are specificly there to prevent circumvention attempts, for example legally subdividing yourself deliver signed software with one hand and DRM hardware with the other. Unless you exaplin the whole scenario, that part is almost impossible to understand.
So well, even when you try to make it simple it gets complicated. For example, let me summarize chapter 15: "No warranty and absolute waiver of liability". It is simple, perfectly understandable and would probably get torn apart in court. So you get this blurb:
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MER- CHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/ OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee."
Now, did it honestly say more than the one line above?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
"but since that faq is not actually part of the GPL it is not binding on anyone's interpretation of the GPL"
IANAL but as far as I understand it this is not actually true. Public statement from the author(s) of a license will affect the decision a judge makes if it ever comes to a trial. IBM lawyers used newletters published by AT&T where they clarified certain points in their license in the SCO case to show that SCO's interpretation of the license was not the same as AT&T's. So if it ever comes down to the question "what does this sentence here actually mean?" a judge will definitely look at any statements made by the FSF.
Where the law and the text of the license are clear there won't be much discussion, but both law and licenses are not science and open for many interpretations, that's why we need judges.
Am I the only one who sees "RMS" and thinks "Root mean square"?
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.
People want compatibility with various licenses, e.g. GPL v3 and Apache, so that code used in one can also be used in the other by someone other than the original author.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Public statement from the author(s) of a license will affect the decision a judge makes if it ever comes to a trial.
This is a good point. When the intent of something is in doubt, it is common for judges to look to the context of things to determine what makes sense. Where things really get hairy is if I use the GPL to license my own work. In that case, am I bound by RMS's interpretation of the license? I may interpret the license differently (and provide my own FAQ about what I think it means). The reality is that in many cases, the FSF view of the license won't matter since the FSF is neither issuing or receiving the license.