Slashdot Mirror
FSF Releases Fourth and Final Draft of GPLv3
An anonymous reader writes "The most notable changes found in this latest draft include making GPLv3 compatible with version 2.0 of the Apache license, ensuring that distributors who make discriminatory patent deals after March 28 may not convey software under GPLv3, adding terms to clarify how users can contract for private modification of free software or for a data center to run it for them, and replacing the previous reference to a U.S. consumer protection statute with explicit criteria for greater clarity outside the United States.
The draft also does not prohibit Novell from distributing software under GPLv3 'because the patent protection they arranged with Microsoft last November can be turned against Microsoft to the community's benefit,' FSF executive director Peter Brown said."
I am not clear what they are talking about, being able to turn these protections around to the FOSS movement's advantage? Frankly, so long as OpenOffice is at risk, I would say there is still quite a bit of risk, since most end users are more concerned with being able to use office/e-mail then about network backends (such as Novell netware).
Can anyone give some clarification?
Programmers hate politics like this. The recent emphasis on it is simply an attempt to make it go away. Sadly, that never works and instead only gets the participants mired in politics for the rest of their lives.
I used to be extremely anti-GPL. Now I'm just slightly anti-GPL, and actually like the LGPL. In a politics-free world, BSD is pretty much the 'obvious' license for a FOSS project. It's just too bad that that'll never be the way the world works.
RMS is far from being my hero, but his tactics and efforts are necessary to balance out a world that has been overrun with greed. There's no other way to explain taking someone else's work and using it for your own ends without even giving credit. (Greed isn't just about money, it's about having things, including fame.)
And because I can't resist, I've reworded your post:
More whinging.. Who really need it? Really don't people have anything better to to? Like, ACTUALLY doing something?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
BSD is amphetamine, giving you instant gratification. GPL is vegetables, tiresome to eat, but provides benefit into the future.
Eat your veggies.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
what if the software is designed specifically to perform a piece of CAM in a way that's patented? Would that patent become invalid because of this licence?
The licence doesn't render your patents invalid. It simply prevents you from suing anyone for patent infringement if the code that infringes your patent was published by you.
This makes a lot of sense - why would you publish the source code for something if you didn't want people to be able to use it? If you are publishing the source code which does something you've patented and you don't protect people then there really is no point publishing the code in the first place since it is illegal for someone to use it.
Why risk losing millions in licence fees when you could spend a few hundred thousand and fit your systems with software you know doesn't rob you these rights?
Why publish source code which could give your competetors an advantage? Clearly publishing code works because you gain an advantage too. Whilest you are potentially helping your competetors, any improvements they make to the code will come back to benefit you.
This is a very difficult balancing act - on the one hand it's very good for the customers since it forces all the vendors to continually improve their offerings. It's also very good for the vendors since they effectively get thousands of man-hours of work without directly paying for those developers. But on the other hand, it means that the vendor has to put a lot of resources into the project in order to continually improve it - they are never going to get into a situation where they have cornered the market and can lock everyone else out and relax like Microsoft has done over the past few years.
So to answer your question - you can risk losing millions in licence fees because in return for that risk you might also get licenses from other people worth millions.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I can't see any other reading of this. Which raises the question: what were Novell smoking when they signed the deal? If Microsoft predicted this kind of clause in GPLv3 (which you can be fairly sure they did), they essentially tricked Novell into signing a contract saying "We're going to stop distributing the very software which is core to our business" and Novell went on record saying how great this contract is.
I have a lot of trouble believing that. In which case, exactly what patent protection does this contract provide?
This argument is funny. What it translates to is: "I want to write 'free' software, but I don't want anyone else to make money off my work" -- Or more directly, "I want to be greedy but not appear to be"
The BSD license will be around for a long time, since there are plenty of people that code for fun, or to do something they needed done, and don't give a damn about being paid for it, regardless of what others do with their code. As for NetBSD - I'd venture to guess its stagnated for the same reason most large projects do: Bad or NO leadership, combined with other projects doing similar things (FreeBSD, OpenBSD).
Likewise, the GPL will be around for a long time, as it fills the need for others who want some sort of control over their software.
I guess I don't see why one license has to "win" over the other. Use what you like. Just don't bash other stuff.
I'm curious whether all this back-and-forth went on when the GPL v2 was written. Is there anyone here who remembers that process?
It's a bit more complicated than that. If Amalgamated Widgets, Inc. releases a GPLv3 driver, they aren't actually binding themselves legally (except that all recipients of the driver have GPLv3 rights). They don't need a license to write software and release it. Therefore, they haven't actually promised anything in that release. They don't have to release the source code even (although that's going to alienate the free software community, if they care). If they use somebody else's GPLv3 code, modify it to their liking, and release it, then they're bound by GPLv3. They have received consideration, in the form of permission to use the code, and therefore the license restrictions are likely to be legally binding. (If they simply pass the code on, unmodified, they aren't giving up any possible patent rights, according to GPLv3. This means that distributors with patent portfolios don't have to check everything they distribute for their own patents, only everything they modify. The FSF is pragmatic about its idealism.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I have been talking about this in several areas plus I have notified the FSF itself of the potential. They acknowledged it but didn't seem to care enough to make a change on the portion of the GPL that would allow it. And seeing how this is the final draft, it doesn't appear as if anything will ever be addressed.
My problem revolves around this section of the draft.
It seems that the FSF is so mad at Novell for making a deal with microsft they are willing to set up microsoft's final plan for free opensource using the gpl. Now forget all the FUD that can be said about how viral the GPL is, forget that they are going to hold up Novell's treatment as the new boogeyman's stick to scare people and companies away from opensource. forget all that for now, because now they have the ability to let the GPL stop people from distributing it.
Now, lets examine this a little closer, it says, You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license
Microsoft can include an arrangement on this into every single windows license. They can also lay claim to everything you use as falling under this protection. Basically, all they have to do is add or fix a clause into the license for ever windows product you buy that says, "microsoft promises not to sue for the use of pattent or IP related issues in connection with your use of third party software including opensource software covered by the GPL. This activity covers your acts of distributing the said software and extends only to direct to anyone you distribute to but not any further then that. This offer is only valid if you have a valid right to this license agreement and you are not the responsible party placing the disputed IP in the software in question"
Now, anyone who buys microsoft software and clicks the I accept button to install it has basically purposely placed themselves into a position directly spelled out in the GPL and directly effecting your ability to distribute GPLv3 work after this. So lets see who buys Microsoft products, HMMM, almost everyone, Even GPL developers. And more interesting, now these programs that are GPLed and run both in linux and windows, are going to have to quite using the GPLv3 or find another license. Of course there is the option to quit developing for windows. This biggest problem might be all the companies who use microsoft products. The entire participate and all stuff just left the window if they use windows. And microsoft could offer indemnification separately for companies who are fearing lawsuits. It could become an option for an extra $20 on the support contracts they have.
Something even more surprising would be that Dell
Microsoft's plan B, or maybe it is C, D, E, or F, is to wait for the GPLv3 to become fixated and then change their license or support contracts to include indemnification of some sorts and thereby triggering the anti Novell parts in the GPLV3. You probably won't see it right at first. They will one day come out and announce they are working so hard to get along with opensource that they are going to indemnify a user of microsoft products who uses any non-microsoft product that might violate any of their IP intentionally or accidentally if that user didn't place the problem in there. And they will sell this to ever major corperation, most OEM users, and every off the shelf product. And they will likely have something available at a small few places for an extra cost that doesn't have the deal in it and doesn't trigger the Novell punishment clause.
If it doesn't seem strange that we are able to talk about a "Novell punishment clause" in a license designed to keep things free, I think you have a limited definition of free. But that aside, When you desing anything to punish someone, you will and up effecting others as well. If Microsoft plays this off, they look angelic while the FSF and the new GPL look evil. "You can't use it if you use microsoft".
Of course enforcment is going to be on the backs of anyone who owns a copy right licensed under the GPL. But lack of enforcment could lead to challenges. I would hate to see all sorts of OSS companies bankrupted because of long lengthy court battles that end up in a "You don't enforce it for this person who is in violation, you are only attempting to enforce it on us because we compete with you" argument. Make no mistake, Microsoft has other plans, even plans that could damage the license if not the entire community. Six months of work under the GPLv3 cannot be taken back to the GPLv2 easily. Especially when everyone at the top is still worried about Punishing Novell for making a deal that didn't violate anything in any existing GPL license. and now that the details of the deal are out, it seems that it didn't effect that vast majority of OSS software. I just hope getting revenge on Novell for making friends with Microsoft is worth the fallout. I will personally be supporting anything sticking with the GPLv2. Even if that makes the GPLv3 and the FSF irrelevant.