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

Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war

[pieterh]

GPLv3 is a key event in Microsoft's war to divide and conquer the Free Software / Open Source community. Most of the Linux industry seems to be betting on GPLv3 to put an end to Microsoft's patent claims. My question is simply: is Microsoft sitting around scratching its head, or has it already started on the next level of play...? Are we going to see those 235 patents handed over to the community, or are we instead going to see "IP Bridges" as the next great Product to come out of Redmond?

Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war

[HoosierPeschke]

I don't think the "IP Bridges" is plausible. As most have said, if Microsoft were to validly claim IP infringement, most if not all projects would revamp and/or code around the infringement.

Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war

[morgan_greywolf]

My question is simply: is Microsoft sitting around scratching its head, or has it already started on the next level of play...?

Yes. Microsoft has developed a culture that almost exactly matches that of one of its principle founders, Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Bill Gates. As Gates did while playing poker in college, Microsoft always has more than one strategy that it's pursuing. There's almost certainly plan B, and its not going to be pretty.

Are we going to see those 235 patents handed over to the community

No. The '235 patents' are far more valuable if they aren't revealed than if they are. Microsoft knows that if these patents were listed, then various groups including the FSF, EFF, PubPat and others will be challenging the validity of those patents in court. The FAT patent is just the start...

or are we instead going to see "IP Bridges" as the next great Product to come out of Redmond?

The 'next great product' to come out of Redmond will almost certainly be something to either further discredit Free Software / Open Source / Linux. Anything to drive people to Windows and away from Linux and GPL software in particular.

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

Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war

[Petrushka]

I may be slow, but I don't get your first point. How does my clicking "I agree" to a Windows EULA equate to my becoming "a party to an arrangement with a third party ... under which [I] make payment ... based on the extent of [my] activity of conveying [a GPL-covered] work"? In other words, while the Microsoft EULA is certainly discriminatory for distribution of the Microsoft software, it has nothing to do with distribution of GPL-ed software, so I don't see why it could or should have any impact on distributors of GPL-ed software.

Your second point, about OEMs, seems solid though. (That may, of course be an outcome precisely intended by those writing GPLv3.)

Bleh

[El Lobo]

More politics.. Who really need it? Really don't people have anything better to to? Like, ACTUALLY writtig software?

Re:Bleh

[Aladrin]

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?

Re:Bleh

[ArwynH]

Considering the people writing the GPL3 are mostly lawyers, no, they don't.

And they can leave the Software writing to us Programmers, thank you.

Re:Bleh

[bentcd]

In a politics-free world, BSD is pretty much the 'obvious' license for a FOSS project.

In a politics-free world, there wouldn't be any licenses because there would be no copyright law to make them enforcable.

Which, of course, boils down to a BSD-like situation except it's unclear how much more secrecy this would lead to. I'm guessing not much.

How to scare away business

[abigsmurf]

So, the draft removes the right to prosecute someone for cracking protected content? Businesses will love that extra complication for prosecuting hackers or disgruntled employees.

The patent thing is going to backfire big time. It's going to scare away businesses who would either stand to lose huge amounts of money or because they're unsure about whether it would invalidate patents they already have (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? Would patented business practices that use OSS be threatened? 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?

For a licence that was supposed to be simple and easy to understand, section 11 makes for a hard read, even for geeks and I imagine lawyers will love the the potential vague nature of those terms. God knows what a layperson would think when reading it.

Re:How to scare away business

[the_enigma_1983]

So, the draft removes the right to prosecute someone for cracking protected content? Businesses will love that extra complication for prosecuting hackers or disgruntled employees. The way I see it, they can no longer prosecute for simply cracking protected content. I see this as being akin to not being able to prosecute for jimmying open a lock. You can still be prosecuted for breaking and entering, for trespassing, for stealing. So these hackers, or disgruntled employees, can no longer be prosecuted for cracking protected content, but surely they can be prosecuted for the cyber equivalent of breaking and entering/trespassing/stealing? I'm no lawyer. Hell, I'm not even American so I have no idea how your legal system works, or what the exact laws are. This is just how I see the interpretation.

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.

Re:How to scare away business

[david_thornley]

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.)

"IP Bridges"

[smittyoneeach]

Which, like that of Stevens, cost a lot without exactly going anywhere useful, no doubt.

Re:Yay freedom!

[pieterh]

What is really, really sad is when people deliberately (or ignorantly) confuse freedom to make life better with freedom to make it worse.

Freedom of expression does not extend to harassment of minorities.

Freedom of movement does not extend to other people's bathrooms.

Freedom of software does not extend to patent ambushes.

Microsoft is cynically exploiting fear of patent infringement to ambush the work done by millions. This is no "pissing war", it is a fight for survival, at least a fight for survival according to the old rules. If Microsoft were respecting the free software community, or even just ignoring it, that'd be fine. But what it's doing is saying, "nice business you have here, Guv, pity you've gone and installed that free stuff everywhere, cause it infringes on our [unspecified] patents, and it'd be a real shame to see a lawsuit happen here..."

Linux is now mainstream, and Microsoft wants to own it. That is what is going on here.

Re:A wake up call

[pieterh]

"Fiasco"?

"Infecting patent deals"?

Who's bitch are you, exactly?

Re:A wake up call

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv3 to call a fiasco, it's neglecting what true fiasco really means - e.g. the US invasion in Iraq is a fiasco, it gets worse everyday, and the one responsible is a dumb ass.

Now, GPLv3 is exactly the opposite, the first draft was reviewed, and heavily critized, and the critics was HEARD and actually CONSIDERED. This is HOW YOU AVOID a fiasco, are you listening?

This process is what a consensus is made of, how a process would applied in other areas of social life like politics would be a true remedy. The fact GPL goes into v3 is that it is evolutionary, and alive.

I use (Free)BSD a lot, and I like its license, but it has no potential to change, it's set, because it gives the most freedom. GPL limits the freedom by forcing you to act alike as you received the freedom, pass-it-on - nice too, and I find it even more nice to see such vivid interest in v3 of GPL, going into the details where freedom is limited and how and how to prevent within the license, this license lives from the update, from the learning, from the input of many.

Wake up!

PS: I'm AC because I hardly post on /. and I'm fine with AC

anti-DRM clause

[sonamchauhan]

I had a look. The controversial anti-DRM clause seems to be in part #3 of the license:

No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technical measures.

The definition of "convey":
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies, excluding sublicensing. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

getting to the end

[martin-boundary]

It's good to read that the GPLv3 will finally be out the door in about three weeks time. It's been a long wait, but I think worth it. I'm looking forward to changing the license boilerplate on all my projects.

One practical issue: it will be nice if somebody (Debian?) could write a script that makes it easy to scan source hierarchies for GPLv2 comments so they can be replaced consistently with GPLv3. The last time the FSF changed its address, it was a pain to check and change all the boilerplates.

Re:A wake up call

[fbjon]

The difference in freedom between BSD and GPL:

BSD is amphetamine, giving you instant gratification. GPL is vegetables, tiresome to eat, but provides benefit into the future.

Eat your veggies.

GPL's goal is freedom, not business friendlyness

[mw13068]

The goal of the GPL, the GNU project, and the FSF has always been software freedom, first and foremost. If a business finds no value in making changes to the way they do things to reap the benefits that Free Software brings, then they are free to not use any GPL'ed software. It's as simple as that.

That said, most of the big businesses currently interested in Free Software, including some which have HUGE patent stores, like IBM have actually participated in the drafting of the GPLv3.

Re:A wake up call

[bentcd]

What is to say the FSF will not add other restrictions on the software you use?

They cannot retroactively add restrictions on their software. It is released under the license it is released under. On the other hand, the usual "GPL v2 or later" wording of the license allows you to adopt later changes should you wish to.

In this case it has mutated to infect unrelated areas of business after entering the host.

No one who is currently using GPLv2 software will see this mutation that you speak of - unless they choose to. People who start to use GPLv3 software will have it marked as GPLv3 when they introduce it so the mutation effect seems somewhat fictional.

Re:Yay freedom!

[squiggleslash]

Freedom is freedom.

Except when it isn't. The problem with freedom is it's an inane word with very little meaning. Ultimately we look to it as an ideal rather than as a goal, because it's very difficult to give everyone absolute freedom when one person can use their's to oppress another, removing the freedom from that second group. Perhaps in a hundred years, when we all have virtual reality, we can have "absolute freedom" within that, with everyone free to do whatever they want to their own words without impacting on anyone else's, but until then others have the right to consider curtailing your freedom the moment your actions involve anyone else.

And that's really the catch- people don't want to admit that linux would ever, ever infringe on Microsoft's patents.

You probably haven't been reading much from those criticizing the use of patents within the community. The reality is that we know full well that it's very, very, likely Linux and other GNU components violate numerous Microsoft patents. We know that it's unfair, because those violations for the most part cover independently invented methods, or code implemented for the purpose of interoperability. Which is why we're (the Free Software community) looking for ways to neutralize deals like Novell's. It's not the notion that Microsoft has patents covering GNU/Linux that bothers us, it's the idea that Microsoft should be allowed to enforce them.

Re:Yay freedom!

[bentcd]

Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that."

Unless the above is a call for anarchy, then that is exactly what you have to do. This happens to be why we have developed a system of ethics, so that we can judge "good" and "bad" behaviour in a sensible manner.

I don't particularly want anyone to have the freedom to enslave me, so I will tend to campaign to remove the freedom to enslave people. Many people seem to think like me and so, in a largely democratic society, that's the way we tend to go.

If you don't like it, get into politics :-)

Re:A wake up call

[Peter La Casse]

The difference in freedom between BSD and GPL:
BSD is amphetamine, giving you instant gratification. GPL is vegetables, tiresome to eat, but provides benefit into the future.

No, it's more like they're both cars with a replication bit that can be set to true or false. If the replication bit is true, then you can replicate an unlimited number of copies of the car and give or sell them to other people. With the GPL, all copies of the car must leave the replication bit set to true. With the BSD license, you can change the replication bit on copies of the car.

Re:Don't like GPLv3? Run MSFT software.

[The Mysterious X]

I choose neither. BSD anyone?

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[starseeker]

But don't the anti-patent provisions in GPLv3 only prevent war WITHIN the open source community? In effect, they will stop the Trojan Horse of patented open source code being used to extort money.

What they DON'T stop is someone without ties to GPLv3 code taking patents and launching an attack. I always thought that IF such an attack would come (at least on a large scale), it would be far more likely to come from someone like Microsoft who would be untouched by any GPLv3 conditions. Small scale bullying might (and in some cases apparently has already) take place, but a large scale "destroy the free software ecosystem" attack I always thought was more likely from someone who had no financial incentive to see free software exist. After all, even patent trolls need someone to attack, and if they kill the free software world there will be nothing left for them to prey on except people who can afford lawyers to fight back. Admittedly they would survive, but I doubt they would be institutionally committed to the destruction of free software.

I admit it might make a repeat of the SCO fiasco with patent claims instead of contract and copyright laws somewhat less likely, and that's beyond question a good thing, but it doesn't reduce the large scale threat in any important way I can see. It's still a patent version of the MAD directive that's holding things in check, and (like the real Cold War) if anyone starts shooting the whole works (commercial AND open source) could go down the drain (in the US at least, and I am regrettably certain at least a few large corporate interests and US lawmakers will do their best to make the consequences felt elsewhere, if only to avoid competition getting an edge by not having to fork over for lawyers to fight patent issues.

What we REALLY need is software patent DISARMAMENT. Reform. What have you. I don't doubt ingenious folk in the commercial world will look for some other way to achieve the same end (as some insightful person said - "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing") but at least this particular gambit will be over.

The ideal case from our side would be to have protection for software that is given away at no cost (with source code) to the benefit of society. Of course the whole "limited monopoly to promote innovation that is publicly disclosed" bit would need to be debated, but at least we would be HAVING the debate. Software patents are just a manifestation of one view of how society should function. There are other views, and I would much prefer to see the debate take place on a societal level in a serious way than to drain the industry's resources fighting legal skirmishes. Life is too short for that, and there's too much code to write.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

[mgiuca]

The idea is that Microsoft is within the open source community now that they are officially distributing SUSE Linux.

Links to the draft, rationale, the Why-to, etc.

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Would it have killed them to link to the actual draft and documents? Here are the links:

• FSFE's GPLv3 information page
• GPLv3 discussion draft 4
• An essay by RMS: Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3
• The rationale document of the changes

Re:GPL's goal is freedom, not business friendlynes

[mw13068]

business *is* on board. IBM, Nokia, Sun, and many others participated in the drafting of the GPLv3. They probably don't care much about the whole "freedom" aspect, but they find that Free Software is great for their bottom line.

My point is that the authors of the license care more about end-user freedom than about whether XYZ inc. will like the license or not. And that is as it should be.

That pessimism isn't justified

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

I don't see the justification for that sort of pessimism. Of course they'll fight back as we continue to eat their lunch. That doesn't mean we haven't eaten anything or that we should stop eating now.

Maybe a bit too optimistic

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

That can work sometimes, but not always.

If we have an application with round buttons and they turn out to be patented, we just make ours square. That's ok because having round buttons is not the purpose of the application. But if we have an application whose purpose is to read and edit MS Word documents, and a patent says we are not allowed to do that, then that application is kaput.

Here are some good explanations of how the patent problem plays out and what we can and can't do about it: http://fsfe.org/transcripts#patents.

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:FSF tries to be relevant

[fotbr]

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.

Did all this go on with GPLv2?

[PhysicsPhil]

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?

Re:Did all this go on with GPLv2?

[Teancum]

In addition to the other comments to this post, I would like to mention that "the internet community" or the "open source fans" was a much, much smaller community than currently exists now. And the mere idea that could make some significant money off of open source wasn't nearly so obvious back in the day. Certainly the huge push for DRM garbage and issues related to patents weren't as huge of a deal.... or at least when I mentioned that it was a huge problem Richard Stallman himself in a one-to-one discussion I had about 10 years ago didn't think software patents were going to be that big of a deal and marginalized the problem. His thinking on this issue certainly has changed from that conversation I had with him oh so many years ago.

So quite a bit of this is due to the fact that the community of developers has grown up quite a bit in the years since GPLv2, and there are some very real problems with GPLv2 if you want to maintain the philosophy that software ought to be free... as in general freedom to make changes to software and "give it back" when you are done.

Re:Yay freedom!

[honkycat]

Freedom is freedom. You can't say "oh, well, this is good freedom, so it's all right. That's bad freedom, so we don't like that." If you want real freedom, you have to give freedom, not select uses that are "good freedom." If you want people to do something different, convince them not to. Or convince everyone else to ignore them or force their hand. Taking that freedom away is a horribly inept way to deal with it. That's just silly. Do you really think folks want "freedom to steal" and "freedom to murder" just because they want real freedom? People who actually want complete, absolute freedom are rare, and that anarchistic view is so harmful to social order that it's just not a very good argument against the GPL. "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," and all that business...

The FSF's view is that locking software away to prevent users from modifying it is a harmful, unethical practice. They, and everyone who uses the GPL, believe it is better not to help people who want to lock their code away. The idea is to encourage more people to contribute to the library of free software by enticing them with the right to reuse some GPL code. This goal is more important than preserving the ethically questionable "freedom" to use software in a way that's harmful.

Re:A wake up call

[ajs318]

Even simpler explanation:

MS EULA => Sharing is stealing.
BSD => Sharing is not stealing.
GPL => Not sharing is stealing.

The GPL protects freedom for users in the future by limiting certain actions which are deemed harmful to freedom now.

In a society where the ownership of slaves is permitted, you might think a person has more freedom than in a society where owning slaves is not permitted. However, it's more likely in the former society, especially if slavery is practised actively and widely, that the average level of freedom will be lower, since a slave has considerably less freedom than a person who has only been banned from owning slaves.

IMHO it is worth giving up the right to own slaves (or the right to make software non-free) in order to protect the rights of those who might otherwise be enslaved (or made to rely on non-free software). The BSD licence unfortunately does not preserve Freedoms One and Three, since it does not ensure continued access to Source Code. Note that a successful decompiler, if it existed, would enable the Taking by Force of Freedoms One and Three, as Freedoms Zero and Two can be taken by Force today.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off... The GPLv3 license's primary goal is to make it more compatable with other licenses.

Second off... the FSF/GNU folks are usually pretty easy-going when it comes to relicensing software for other people to use, if they have a good reason to. There are a number of projects that have given out GPL'd code under a different license for compatability reasons.

Ever try to get somebody from Apache project to relicense code for you? IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They are much more hardcore, beuracratic, and nasty about this then the GNU folks.

It's like your seeing the world inside-out or something.

Your taking a person like RMS whose primary purpose in life, something he has devoted pretty much every minute of his waking life, is for the freedom of software users everywere. And you act like it's HIM that wants to control YOU.

It's so much bullshit that it makes me want to puke, get your head out of your ass.

Not everybody wants to devote their lives to making software that you can turn around and use to extract fees from the clueless masses. The GPL is about liberation, moving away from restrictive software licenses, not about making other people rich.

Re:FSF tag lines

[babbling]

Actually, whenever the FSF uses source code that they didn't write they request that the author signs copyright over to the FSF. I imagine they don't use the code unless this happens.

They do this to ensure they have the right to do what you are claiming they can't do.

Re:attack of the centralized anarchist Linux cult

[Ohreally_factor]

The GPL actually acts to prevent others from limiting my choice in what I do with the software. The only proviso being I must also pass on such freedoms to others. GPL 2 certainly does this. It's more than a great license, it's a great document. GPL 3 does limit what you do with the software, regardless of your passing on the same freedom to others, by placing limits on the hardware you are allowed to use. This last draft of GPL 3 is much improved, but this remains a philosophical sticking point for me. GPL 2 does need an overhaul, but GPL 3 in its current form is (still) not it. Even Linus, who has welcomed the recent changes, is luke warm in his enthusiasm (which I'll grant is better than his condemnation and rejection of earlier drafts).

I'm not Bezroukov, but thanks for that link. Interesting thoughts.

Its not a Microsoft-Linux war....

[MoronBob]

It is a Microsoft-World war. In case you haven't noticed over the last 20 years or so MS has attacked anyone that they felt would take even .01% of what they consider to be revenue that belongs to them. They don't believe in competition of any kind. The GPL is the only challenge to the MS monopoly that has a snowballs chance in hell to make a dent in it. Over the years I may have met one or two Unix bigots that were trying to eliminate any MS software running in the company but I have met dozens of MS cult drones that reject anything that does not have the MS stamp of approval on it. Most of these drones have zero understanding of architecture and infrastructure and why MS is not always one size fits all. Freedom is divine. Its what is best for everyone. and yes I do have ADD. You couldn't tell from my posts?