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.
"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.