Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS Explains GPLv3 Draft 3

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the discussion-drafts-doing-their-job dept.

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."

6 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. I wish for a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    legal discussion of GPLv3, by lawyers for laymen, and how it impacts: developers, developers who use libraries, users, corporate users, etc...

    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.

    1. Re:I wish for a ... by gormanly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a contract, it's a software licence, which isn't the same thing in law.

      And it is stupid to have such things as EULA's which only a lawyer could possibly understand the full meaning and implications of - but haven't all the millions of computer users the world over "agreed" to them without such an understanding? Or has everyone else received their classes in understanding the licences for Microsoft Windows and Office, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Sun Java, Macromedia Flash and everything else that is loaded on their PCs as part of their basic education, on a day I was off school?

      The question is whether the GPL (any version) is harder to understand than any other licence. If not, then you don't need a lawyer just for the GPL v3.

  2. CLEAR! by Cr0w+T.+Trollbot · · Score: 5, Funny
    (RMS applies paddles to GPL3's chest. It twitches once, then lies still again)

    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

  3. Re:Why GPL3? by Adhemar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Ah, Richard, you're beautiful by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  5. Re:Why GPL3? by fregaham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.