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."
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.
My blog
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.
sigs are hazardous to your health
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.
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.