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."

Comments

Re:How to scare away business

[FireFury03]

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.

Not sure I buy the Novell comment

[jimicus]

From the summary:

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." Quite correct. But that doesn't quite work if the deal with Microsoft says "this agreement is exclusive". In that case, the only way Novell can abide by that is to distribute nothing under GPLv3, and very possibly nothing under "GPLv2 or later".

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?

Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war

[sumdumass]

I don't think microsoft has to go that far and can still seriously harm opensource.

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.

A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. 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 (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

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