Slashdot Mirror
GPLv3 Released
A GNU Dawn writes "The GPL v3 has just been released. Among other things, the released version grandfathers in the Novell deal so that Microsoft's SLES coupons will undermine their patent threats, replaces references to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act with more specific language, and clarifies that using BitTorrent to convey a GPLed work is not a breach of the license (it might be one, technically, in GPLv2). The GPL FAQ has been updated to cover the new changes." Commentary is available over at Linux.com (which is owned, along with Slashdot, by Sourceforge).
That's not chocolate.
Because you missed it the first time .....
. php
http://web.sourceforge.com/news_archive/2007/1799
VA Software Corporation (Nasdaq: LNUX), the online media and e-commerce leader in community-driven open source innovation, today announced it has changed its name to SourceForge, Inc. The change reflects the company's strategic focus on its network of Web properties following the disposition of its enterprise software business. The company's Nasdaq ticker symbol will remain the same.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, GPLv3 is compatible to the Apache License v2.
Support Free Software! Join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fellowship.fsfe.org
We are pleased to report that the Final Draft makes the Apache License, version 2.0, fully compatible with GPLv3. We are grateful to the Apache Software Foundation for working with us to achieve this long-sought goal. The concerns we stated in the Draft 3 Rationale were based on varying literal readings of section 9 of the Apache license that diered from the interpretation of section 9 held by the ASF itself. During the course of productive discussions with the ASF following the release of Draft 3, we ascertained that, to the ASF, the words \by reason of" in the section 9 upstream indemnication clause meant nothing broader or vaguer than \directly as a result of." Read in this light, section 9 seems to us a reasonable and fair approach to protecting upstream developers, even though we do not wish to adopt such a provision in our own license. The Final Draft makes the Apache indemnication clause compatible with GPLv3 by adding a new category of additional conditions in section 7 that may be applied, with appropriate copyright authorization, to material added to a covered work. Subsection 7f allows terms that require indemni- cation of upstream licensors and authors of the material by a downstream distributor who conveys with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that such assumptions directly impose on those upstream parties.
Also, from the Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 document:
Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. (For full information, see gplv3.fsf.org.) All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade.
Not quite a free pass. Notice that the grandfather clause only includes the bit about distributing GPLv3'd software while a party to such an agreement. It doesn't extend to failing to pass along any patent license (which includes things like covenants not to sue) or rights to pass along such a patent license in turn. So Novell can distribute GPLv3'd software because of the grandfather clause, but they can't distribute any of it subject to the agreement with MS without violating either the agreement or the software's license (license requires that they pass that coverage to all indirect recipients, agreement prohibits doing so).
"Getting in is easy. Getting out, that really isn't hard either. Getting out alive, that's the tricky part."
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Thursday, June 28, 2007 -- On Friday, June 29, not everyone in the continental U.S. will be waiting in line to purchase a $500 (370) iPhone. In fact, hundreds of thousands of digital aficionados around the globe won't be standing in line at all, for June 29 marks the release of version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Version 2 of the GPL governs the world's largest body of free software -- software that is radically reshaping the industry and threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the iPhone. (...) The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated? Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work -- it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software." The GNU GPL version 3 will be released at 12:00pm (EDT) -- six hours before the release of the iPhone -- bringing to a close eighteen months of public outreach and comment, in revision of the world's most popular free software license.
That is exactly what the likes of Microsoft and Sony want to do for anything consumer-available.
And it's not like you couldn't build your own.They want to stop you from doing that too (or at least make it economically infeasible).
Pirate Party UK
Allow me to make some introductions: Peter, meet BSD. BSD, meet Peter.
Oh yes, GPL3 anti-Tivoisation clause, meet irrelevance and backlash.
I suspect that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Quite a lot of open-source software (or at least user-written software) has been created in response to the encroachments of Digital Restrictions Management on the abilities of users to view the media which they have purchased in the false belief that such purchase entitles them to view where and when they like.
Requiring general-purpose consumer computer equipment to prevent code unsigned by the vendor from being run provides a number of benefits from the point of view of both the media cartel and large software companies:
Sony, in their position as a vendor of "trendy" hardware but also as a major stakeholder in the media market, is in the ideal position to introduce such a device, and I would expect them to do so within the next two years or so. Assuming Microsoft survives the damp squib that is Vista, I would expect the device to be announced jointly by the two players as a new "secure mobile computing platform" (not marketed as a "traditional" PC).
Software vendors would be able to acquire signing keys (relatively) easily, but they would not be available for operating systems and would likely require small per-user fees in order to squash out open source software. In addition, a Sword of Damocles contract would be required, whereby distributing software later found to be non-compliant with the terms of the signing key contract would result in all software signed with that vendor's key to be remotely deactivated.
Your mention of BSD is entirely irrelevant in the context of my GP comment, so (at the risk of being accused hypocritical) I respectfully suggest that you shut up and stop being a condescending moron.
Pirate Party UK
Fair point. And although you might (probably should) agree that this is a pretty pathological example, I did only ask for one!
My response would be to ask whether a community so rife with anti-social behaviour is one which you want to be part of, but I suppose you've already answered that question too.
Pirate Party UK
This is an urban myth. Linux can be relicensed at any time, with a simple legal process. It is not necessary to find all of the developers to get their permission.
How can the Linux kernel project, with its thousands of developers, ever change its license? We can't even reach them all, and some of those developers are dead and their estates don't know software licenses from driver's licenses. But changing the license is easier than most people think.
First, it's not a fundamental change: the intent of GPL 3 is that of GPL 2, the change is in the implementation. Given that, what would be required for such a change would be for Torvalds (or someone else) to publish his intent to start making releases with the new license, as a legal notice. A certain number of people would object, and they would have the right to require that their contributions be removed from the new release.
The kernel team has never been loath to replace code when necessary, and never slow to handle the job, no matter how large the item to be replaced. Just look at the replacement of Bitkeeper with "git", a big job that took a ground-up rewrite and yet was working in five weeks. So, code belonging to GPL3-objectors would be swiftly dealt with.
After some time passed, the release would happen under the new license, and life would go on. There is precedent for this, as Torvalds has already made two significant changes to the prelude to GPL2 on the kernel, publishing his intent and then making a release.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I have it on good authority, from a girl, that Stallman has a BIG ass dick. She held her hands apart like she was telling a fish story.
Seriously.
You brought it up.
Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers.
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development.
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued.
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing.
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers
If Solaris moves to GPLv3 while Linux is stuck with v2, Debian might adopt the Solaris kernel as their main kernel (after a long transition process), since it is more in line with their principles of creating a pure GNU system. And then, what will happen to the Debian derived systems (such as Ubuntu)? If Sun plays their cards right, they can effectively shift a big chunk of the Linux world to Solaris. First, Debian already has multiple kernels (Linux and BSD). Second, sure, if OpenSolaris were as functional as Linux, and GPL3 to boot, it might be a nice replacement. However, at this point OpenSolaris is far behind Linux with regards to device drivers and other things. So, this won't happen in the near future. In fact, Nexenta are already basically doing what you suggested, with little popularity thus far (although it is an interesting project to watch).
But not with a popular license. I'm not interested in hacking on a CDDL-licensed Java. A GPL3'ed Java, yes.
Newsflash! Java is GPLv2; not CDDL. Research before posting. Thanks.
The only problem with GPL 3 is that it is difficult to move software with a large number of compyright holders from 2 to 3, if the "and later versions" wording was not used to start with. This will mean that that will be some GPL software that can not be statically linked with other GPL software. A lot of what people want to link will be LGPLed or under BSD style licences, which will mitigate the problem.
One project that might hae a problem is KDE, Does anyone know if Qt going to use GPL3?
Given that, what would be required for such a change would be for Torvalds (or someone else) to publish his intent to start making releases with the new license, as a legal notice.
Torvalds is not the copyright holder of the software released by other copyright holders under GPL2 without the "v2 or any later" clause (except portions of the software he wrote himself). Hence, if he ever attempts to release it under a different license (v3 or whatever) without the consent of the copyright holders, he immediately violates copyright law (remember, he's not the copyright holder and only the copyright holder can change the license terms).