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).

Comments

Irony - I love it

[$RANDOMLUSER]

The cute saying of the minute at the bottom of the page is:

An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.

I think that says it all.

To all those complainers

[ILuvRamen]

For all those out there that are going to complain about certain parts of it, let me be the first to say that if you don't like it, DON'T USE IT! Write your own damn license.

tivoisation

[Kuciwalker]

I don't understand the furor over Tivoisation, and think it's a really bad move on the FSF's part to ban it. In all the other articles I've seen tons of comments along the lines of "well if Tivo doesn't want to give back, then they can't use my code!" The thing is, Tivo does give back - they contribute any source code they add. And there's nothing preventing you from using that code on another system (with similar hardware, of course). I don't see the benefit in forcing them to open up their hardware just because they want to use GPLv3 software on it. For most devices like this, it's important to the proper functioning of the network for the servers to be able to trust the clients, and so there have to be limitations to the software you can run on that device. GPLv3 won't convince Tivo (or others) to open their hardware, it will just force all of them to stick with GPLv2 code. That hurts adoption of Free Software.

The irritating part is that the FSF has the business products exception, where Tivoisation is okay for hardware sold for business use. Stallman et. al. recognize that in some cases it's ultimately beneficial to the user to be unable to run modified software (e.g. a business that has to have accountability, or a console gamer who wants to know that no one is running a hacked game in multiplayer), but they think they can somehow figure out where that line is for everyone.

Re:tivoisation

[Kuciwalker]

The spirit of the GPL is that of freedom for the user. Tivoisation, the restriction of actually modifying the code on the hardware, was an unforeseen issue when GPLv2 (which guarantees that right) was written and thusly had to be corrected in GPLv3.

And yet the FSF went to great lengths to permit it in some cases (the business use exception), recognizing that Tivoisation isn't a restriction on fundamental freedom, and in fact in many cases is beneficial to the user. That's why they have the convoluted definition of "consumer device" so that they can distinguish between consumer and business products - because lots of businesses have an interest in devices that will only run signed code. And I gave an example of where the consumer wants the same thing - games, where the user wants to know that everyone is running the same version in multiplayer. In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability. So even if we accept that there are cases where Tivoisation is bad, and that the FSF ought to try to prevent them, we're left with the fact that it can only do so with a broad brush, eliminating a lot of good uses along with a lot of bad ones. They're taking away as much freedom for the user (freedom to use GPLv3 on their trusted platform while maintaining that trust) as they're giving.

Re:tivoisation

[Evets]

It's pretty simple. If I buy a product, let's say it's a PDA and the PDA interface uses software I developed. I find a major security hole in my software, so I want to patch it.

Tivoisation prevents me from patching it. It prevents me from adding features. It prevents me from fixing bugs.

It's my software. I want to update it, and the only thing preventing that is licensing. That and a hardware based security system enforcing the licensing. When I wrote the software originally, I did not intend for products to be developed using my software that I could not update. In fact, I licensed my software in order to prevent that kind of a thing. Unfortunately, the PDA manufacturer found a loophole that stuck to the letter of my license, but not the spirit of it.

This is pretty much what Tivo did. The anti-Tivoisation language in the new GPL effectively closes that loophole.

Now, if Tivo wants to do the same thing in the future, they can either utilize software who's authors don't mind (and it's widely available for what Tivo wants to do), or they can contact the original author team for alternative licensing. In the case of large scale community projects where no such licensing option exists, they can either stick to the license or they can develop their own similar project in-house.

All the FSF is doing is ensuring that software licensees abide by the spirit of what the original authors intended. They recognized that business enterprises were taking advantage by using loopholes and they've attacked that problem - pretty effectively.

---
I can't think of a single instance where Tivo actually contributed code back to the community as you state.

Regardless, they are not without free options. All they need to do is shift to BSD licensed products - which they should have done in the first place given their long term strategy.

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability. So even if we accept that there are cases where Tivoisation is bad, and that the FSF ought to try to prevent them, we're left with the fact that it can only do so with a broad brush, eliminating a lot of good uses along with a lot of bad ones. They're taking away as much freedom for the user (freedom to use GPLv3 on their trusted platform while maintaining that trust) as they're giving.

Surely having code signed by the owner achieves the same results in this case as having code signed by the vendor, assuming that the owner is not stupid enough to keep the private key for the signing process on the box which they are requiring to run signed code?

I challenge you to provide me with one example of a case where using the user's key to sign the code running on their box is inferior to the same box running the same software signed by a vendor key which the user does not have access to.

Re:tivoisation

[Timothy Brownawell]

The irritating part is that the FSF has the business products exception, where Tivoisation is okay for hardware sold for business use. Stallman et. al. recognize that in some cases it's ultimately beneficial to the user to be unable to run modified software (e.g. a business that has to have accountability, or a console gamer who wants to know that no one is running a hacked game in multiplayer), but they think they can somehow figure out where that line is for everyone.

The other irritating part is that this is discriminatory licensing, and I therefore don't see how it can properly be considered "Free".

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

But closed hardware and code does not prevent cheating. The PS3 and Motorstorm are pretty closed, yet online game play is rife with people cheating with infinite boosts.

Which to my mind makes whether or not you're allowed to restrict the user to running vendor-signed game binaries a rather moot point...

Slashdot's told me to "Slow down, cowboy!" so while waiting for the timer to run out I'll write this rather pointless line at the end of my post.

Apache Licence

[smartr]

So is the GPLv3 compatible with Apache License v2 style licenses, or has that idea been abandoned?

OpenSolaris

[starseeker]

Now the interesting part - will this license prove to be one Sun feels they can use for OpenSolaris?

If so, and the copyright holders for the parts of the Linux kernel of use to Sun are willing to license their code under GPLv3 as well, we may begin to see some major impacts on the open source OS landscape.

Fingers crossed.

Re:OpenSolaris

[joe_bruin]

Consider this possibility:
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.

Re:OpenSolaris

[Kjella]

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.

Just because the license text is produced by the same organization, and some other code is using some other license which permits relicensing to it, doesn't make GPLv2-only code related to GPLv3 any more than any other license. Having the same "intent" is a concept with no legal weight. Nor can Torvalds make any kind of legally binding "objection period". When someone specificly removed "and later versions" from their license text, you can't assume that silence now is permission to relicense.

A certain number of people (many?) would not object or do anything at all, but they would have the right to sue Linus and every Linux distro for copyright infringement any time in the next decades, not only cease and desist letters but also for damages, and they'd be right. Why? Because they might want money, because they're asshats, because they got bought out by MS, because they're peeveed' that you relicensed without permission, because they don't like the license, take your pick. Also copyright doesn't expire if not enforced for a while, so if you thought this was anything like not enforcing a patent when someone makes public claims to use it, you're wrong.

In short, to me it sounds like a very dangerous plan to me, but IANAL so I wouldn't know. Then again I think neither are you, but maybe you've gotten better legal advice than my understanding...

Make it an ideology

[athloi]

"The educational aspect of GPLv3 has, in my opinion, been the greatest success," he says.

I agree. The open source movement has always wanted a focal point, a figure like Mao or Roosevelt, who can champion its ideal and point out its obvious implications. It's slightly anarchistic. It's anti-ownership. It's Darwinistic (let the best code win). All that is now clear, and many people agree.

The real question to me, as an observer of "current history," is whether people will take this to logical conclusions outside the world of the net. Will the Wal-Marts burn, and Paris Hilton be forced to do her own laundry? Will the morons of the world be forced to dwell in antartica? Or will this be a pithy statement like those of forgotten rock stars, "changing the world" inside a few minds separated by vast spaces of time, distance, economic instability and doubt?

Time for Sun to Shine

[bill_mcgonigle]

OK, now it's time for Sun to grab the bull by the horns. They've been waiting for GPL3 for a year and a half - and just recommitted to it a couple weeks ago, pending final language - if Java and OpenSolaris get released with GPL3 things are going to get *very* interesting.

Everybody please join me in exhorting Jonathan to take the bungee jump.

Re:Time for Sun to Shine

[ForumTroll]

if Java and OpenSolaris get released with GPL3 things are going to get *very* interesting.

I'm not trolling but I'm genuinely curious at to what exactly you think would get interesting? Unless Linux is able to move to the GPLv3 as well, which is doubtful, I doubt much will change. Java and Solaris are already open source and it hasn't made much of a difference. Java on the desktop is still shunned and it will probably never be adopted significantly outside of enterprise data entry applications. In terms of web applications, there are a plethora of web frameworks that are written in other languages that people seem to be adopting and migrating to. Java, to some degree, is also still tied down to the archaic processes that exist at the JCP. From what I've seen, people seem to be moving away from Java if anything.

In terms of Solaris, while it might be a great operating system, for most use cases it doesn't really offer much incentive to switch away from Linux or one of the various BSDs. The main reason people are excited about it possibly being released under the GPLv3, is because Linus has publicly stated that if that happens he might attempt to push the Linux kernel to the GPLv3. This is simply because people want to see ZFS and dtrace in Linux. From my experience, most people don't seem to care what happens on the Solaris side of the fence.

The main reason I write this is because I know a lot of Sun supporters that seem to think that if Solaris and Java are released under GPLv3 that there will be a significant adoption of the two technologies. I just don't see it happening. It didn't happen when they were released under other open source licenses and I can't see it happening if they're released under the GPLv3. What exactly does the GPLv3 offer that makes people think it will be any different?

I updated to version 3 today

[MarkWatson]

This was an easy decision for me - I agree with the new license terms.

I did not originally use the "or later version" verbage, and I decided not to this time, not that it matters: I write what could best be called "small market" OS projects :-)

A bit off topic, but it continues to frustrate me that my customers don't take more advantage of the GPL. I have been an independent consultant for a decade, and I almost never get customers to support open source development. I went so far as to offer a 30% discount for work on GPLed projects - no bites, but lots of offers to work on proprietary systems. My take is that there is too much emphasis on protecting intellectual property and not enough on reducing costs and improving quality by building on top of existing GPLed projects. From my experience, and a bit of opinion thrown in: most value in intellectual property is in unique data sources and human knowledge. I would bet that most companies would do better on financial and quality metrics by having a few proprietary systems for specific data processing, application of unique algorithms, etc. - and use GPL (or Apache, BSD, etc.) for as much infrastructure software as possible.

Re:Why is this under "Linux"

[wbren]

Linux is under the GPL v2, not v3.

Probably because Linus is at least considering using GPLv3 for at least parts of Linux. Here's a quote from the man himself:

Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3.

I know it's a bit of a loose connection to Linux, but there has definitely been quite a lot of news lately about Linux, Linux, GPLv3, Sun, etc.

Re:MS SLES Coupons

[kripkenstein]

Is it really true that they're "distributing" Linux by selling the SLES coupons?
[...]
Given that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this, I think they must not see it as a big risk, and that to me isn't a good thing. Well, to be honest, the whole Microsoft-saying-Linux-infringes-patents thing is FUD, and vice versa, the FSF-says-Microsoft-are-distributing-Linux thing is FUD as well. Both are dubious and the results of testing them in court would be very uncertain, as no precedent exists for either. Their purpose is basically to deter people from doing things (from using Linux or from suing Linux, respectively).

So, this basically seems like a 'fight fire with fire' tactic on the FSF's part. If it makes Microsoft even more wary about suing Linux vendors, then why not, I guess (although I don't think Microsoft would have sued them anyhow).

Re:Yeah, but

[tkinnun0]

Perhaps it's time for BSD version 2, for example:

Redistribution and use in source and binary or other forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

* Redistributions in binary or other forms must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

* Neither the name of [original copyright holder] nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

* This list of conditions is the only list of conditions imposed on redistributions in source and binary or other forms.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.