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

Yeah, but

[wiredog]

Does it run on an iPhone?

Re:Yeah, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see the GPLv3 on my iPhone! In fact, I'm reading this on my iPhone right now! The AT&T network is so gr39jf9,2c0mnklzpsp][/l/9 56(%*^

[CARRIER LOST]

Re:Yeah, but

[qualidafial]

In Utah, this is what we call a "faith promoting rumor."

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.

iRonic

[vigmeister]

That it should be released on the same day as a device that teased otherwise, but was virtually closed to 3rd party development.
Cheers!

Re:iRonic

[fsmunoz]

Well, ironic, but perhaps not just a coincidence...

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.

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.

Re:Irony - I love it

[dpilot]

But it's only effective for your relatives. Maybe you've been spit out, but you're still dead.

At this point the analogy to OSS breaks down, because in this case the predator is after the kill, not the meal.

Re:Irony - I love it

[Mattintosh]

Only let them get a bite... It works better if you're poisonous. "Poison, poison, poison... Tastyfish!"

Glad I sat in line

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been sitting at my computer eating nothing but hot pockets and red bull waiting for this. I got up only for bathroom breaks.
It's been worth it. Now I have to print it out so I can fall asleep with it.

Yeah, but

[Captain Splendid]

Is Linus happy with it?

Let me be the first to say...

[niceone]

Let me be the first to say: GPLv4 - it's going to be terrible, it's unnecessary and unwanted, probably will destroy linux and maybe the world too. GPLv4 will eat babies!

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

[zellyn]

That's fine if it were just Tivos. However, what would happen if every piece of hardware you bought was Tivoised? Only properly signed binaries would run at all. I can think of several companies that would love that situation.

Re:tivoisation

[UtucXul]

I don't see the benefit in forcing them to open up their hardware just because they want to use GPLv3 software on it.

No one is asking them to open up their hardware. As far as I'm concerned they can do anything they want with their hardware. The problem is that they want to lock MY hardware and won't give me the key. I purchased a series 2 TiVo. I understand that software has licenses so I don't own the software when I buy it in a way. But the TiVo box is a physical item that I gave a store money for. The only owner of that box sitting under my TV is me (and I guess my wife).

Re:tivoisation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

If you don't understand the significance of that then I invite you to a thought-experiment of what it would be like in a world where you can see the source, but not modify it, even though that right is guaranteed by the license of the software. Oh, and in regard to your comment of using the code on similar hardware. What if said hardware was proprietary and only available through the systems provider? What then?

As an aside, where does it state that GPL licensed software must "give back?" As I read it, it merely states that you must pass on the code and the same rights to your clients. If the clients are public, "at large" then I can understand the concept that the source is released publicly and considered to be giving back. But, this concept of upstream patches that is constantly heralded on Slashdot I just don't understand. Who is espousing this misinformation? Heck, even the concept of forking would be moot if upstream patches were mandatory.

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

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Then they should pick a software product based on a license that lets you do that. To oversimplify, but in a way that most people can grok, the BSD line maximizes the rights of the individual user(developer-sense) of software. The GPL has always been about maximizing the rights of the community, at the expense of what the user wants (to keep his changes secret, e.g.). GPL3 just clarifies some of the loopholes found in GPL2 that minimize community rights.

TiVo clearly takes rights away from the end-users of the hardware they've purchased, and this is contrary to the spirit of the GPL.

Re:tivoisation

[TrueJim]

It's like a restaurant chef refusing to tell you what's in your dinner. Sure, it's the chef's recipe...but it's your dinner. You're the one about to put the mystery food into your belly. You have a right to know what's going to go into your stomach. That doesn't mean you intend to steal the chef's recipe, but daggumit...it's your stomach! You have a right to know what's going in'it!

Likewise, my Tivo is my computer. It's running in my house. It's connected to my network. I have a right to know what it's doing. Would you be as forgiving of a builder who wouldn't let you keep a copy of the plans to your house? Would you tolerate a car dealer who's welded your hood shut? It's your house. It's your car. You have a right to know where the plumbing goes. You have a right to look at the engine.

I'm not saying I entirely agree with this philosophy...but I fully understand it's impetus. GPL aside, how do you balance the chef's right to keep his recipe a trade secret, against the diner's right to know what's a'goin' into his own belly? It's a thorny question. Anybody who claims the answer is "obvious" isn't giving due consideration to the counter-arguments. Both sides have a valid point.

In the case of Tivo, the chef is saying, "You won't eat without knowing my recipe? Well, I guess you'll have to go to a different restaurant!" The diner is saying, "But we had a deal...you built your recipe on mine." In this case, I have to side with the diner. We had a deal. Tivoisation is wrong.

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

But, let's be realistic. It would be absolutely impossible to Tivoise all general-purpose computers.

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).

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

[PeterBrett]

Likewise, my Tivo is my computer. It's running in my house. It's connected to my network. I have a right to know what it's doing. Would you be as forgiving of a builder who wouldn't let you keep a copy of the plans to your house? Would you tolerate a car dealer who's welded your hood shut? It's your house. It's your car. You have a right to know where the plumbing goes. You have a right to look at the engine.

Actually, this is a poor analogy. In defense of Tivo, they are very good about complying with the letter of GPL v2 in that they distribute the sources to all of the GPL software that they use.

This explanation is much better, in my opinion.

Another way of looking at it is this (I don't have a Tivo, but hopefully my argument will make sense). Suppose you have a great idea for a way to improve the way the Tivo interface works for you, and you see that the modifications you need to make to the code which Tivo distribute to you are quite trivial. However, when you send the patch to Tivo they tell you they won't implement it because the business case doesn't support it -- you're the only one of their customers likely to use such a change. Then you're left hanging: as you mentioned, you own a more or less generic computing device and now you also have some code to run on said computing device, but you're at the whim of a third party (non-enforceable EULAs notwithstanding) as to whether or not you can put those two components together.

As many people have pointed out, the right to make modifications and improvements and to use said modifications and improvements is pretty fundamental to the whole point of Free Software, and that's exactly what Tivo have been trying to get around.

I agree that they need to be stopped, and I support the GPL v3 in its strategy to deal with this.

Re:tivoisation

[Kuciwalker]

Jesus Christ, I've mentioned it twice already: networked multiplayer games. Because I can't run a modified executable on my machine, I can't cheat, and neither can anyone else.

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]

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:

1. Lock-in of consumers to "approved" software is easier, increasing sales and thus profits for a small number of "certified" vendors.
2. Pernicious anti-DRM tools can be stopped at source.
3. Market barriers to entry are greatly increased, reducing profit-limiting competition.

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.

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

Jesus Christ, I've mentioned it twice already: networked multiplayer games. Because I can't run a modified executable on my machine, I can't cheat, and neither can anyone else.

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.

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

There should be no expectation that a manufacturer make its hardware available for third party development. Proprietary systems have there drawbacks, but they are a fact of life. If one has an issue with the fact that a given consumer device is a closed platform, one ought not purchase the device. This ought to be how the issue of so-called Tivoization ought to be decided, by making the business model non-viable for the company, not some poorly constructed, arbitrarily defined licensing scheme that restricts only the freedom of some, and not all. The fact that there is a "commercial device" exception indicates that the case for so-called Tivoization has a valid application and should therefore be allowed. Banning the practice for "consumer devices" is simply an arbitrary confinement of freedom that is a slippery slope.

The clauses in the GPL v3 simply say: "If you use my software, for free, to create a device which you then sell back to me at a steep price, I'd better bloody well be able to put any further modifications I make to that software onto said device. Furthermore, because I think that's pretty neat, I'd like you to extend that ability to your other customers too. If you don't like it, write your own damn software."

I paraphrase and over-simplify, but the gist is there. It's not legislation, banning the practice generally. It's very specific.

You have an objection to this?

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.

Re:tivoisation

[mrchaotica]

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.

Her's what you're missing: the GPL exists to benefit USERS , not developers! As it stands, the users of TiVos are being screwed because they can't actually modify the code that runs on their own devices. The GPLv3 is designed to fix that.

If this still doesn't make sense, remember that the incident that incited RMS to start all this was that some company refused to give him the source code for the driver for his printer (it had a bug that he wanted to fix). The GPL exists to fix that problem. Sure, RMS could have just gotten a different printer, but that wasn't the point.

Re:tivoisation

[jythie]

The problem with this type of argument is you are having to force your technical design based off idealogical legal requirements.

'Rolling the dice' on the server for a large number of connections is more secure and correct, but can be sufficiently inefficient as to make games unplayable. When possible, technical decisions should be made on technical merits.

Re:tivoisation

[rockhome]

First, the relevant text :

A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.

"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.

Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.

I have a problem with this for multiple reasons. First, the license makes a clear distinction between products for a home and a business. If freedom is the essence of the GPL, this clause is the antithesis of that. By making the distinction, since the specification of a user product provides a way to classify a non-user product, the license admits that practice is a valid one. If the practice has some validity, then the license should err on the side of more freedom by allowing the practice generally, or the license should not allow for the practice at all. Again, the GPL is aimed at freedom, and this freedom ought to extend to all users, as has been its application. The cost of "tivoization" needs to be considered as a by product of freedom. By not applying the freedom equally and targetting one behavior while simultaneous admitting that a similar behavior is within the bounds of the license, the FSF is no longer supporting true freedom.

My second issue regarding the anti-tivoization clause is simply that there has been no sufficient argument made that the practice actually harms anyone. With the source available, users are free to build there own versions that are not closed and will run any arbitrary code.

With no proof of real harm, and a license clause that contradicts the aims of RMS and

Re:tivoisation

[fferreres]

Linus comment is that that is a great goal, but goes beyond the scope of a software license. I mean, If we are unable to obtain uncloked hardware, Linux can't stop that from happening. We will only make sure that ALL efforts for software-specific hardware become closed NOT open source. We lose all the efforts and insights, and the propietary vendors win. Would you contribute to a project that instead of the effort put into enhancing the code, wanted to limit your legitimate ability from doing usefull solutions? Would you prefer TIVO used closed software? What's the benefit from a developers perspective? Because from an end user perspective, TIVO will go propietary and you'll lose that right.

And open hardware solutions will be harder or impossible to obtain, and even worst, most technological advances in the field of PRV will go closed platforms. With TIVOs allowed to lock down HARDWARE, you get to enable competitors to use TIVOs code to make open SOLUTIONS more likely to success (after all, they have all the software they need, and only need to make it work on non locked hardware).

Now the community is divided. You have better patent coverage + nasty limitations that involve which hardware can be used with GPL software, or you have a more fair and intelligent license like GPL v2 but that is not great for dealing with patent bombs.

For the record, I predict that GPL v4 will get rid of the stupid anti-tivoization elements, and keep the patent protections in place, and that Linux will migrate to GPL v4 by that time.

Federico

MS SLES Coupons

[Kadin2048]

Is it really true that they're "distributing" Linux by selling the SLES coupons?

The way I read this, it's a pretty high-risk maneuver. They've essentially given Novell a free pass, hoping that they can undermine Microsoft with the SLES coupons thing. But if Microsoft can argue that they're not really distributing Linux by selling the coupons, then the whole thing, I think, unravels -- Novell gets a free pass for nothing and can continue on its merry way, remaining in the death-pact with Microsoft and using GPL3 code.

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. It means they think they can avoid having their patents undermined, and if that's true, then excepting Novell will be for nothing.

Re:MS SLES Coupons

[Anonymous Coward]

"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. It means they think they can avoid having their patents undermined, and if that's true, then excepting Novell will be for nothing."

The reason that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this is because if they gave any impression that this would be a major impact to their IP Licensing and bottom line, share holders will start to dump stock.

I'm not saying that GPL3 is a huge hole is MS core business, just that IF IT WAS, they'd sure as hell wouldn't scream about anything if they were in a tight spot, drawing attention to themselves during a bad time.

Re:MS SLES Coupons

[Todd Knarr]

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."

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).

Why is this under "Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is under the GPL v2, not v3.

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:is this the license that bans DRM?

[Spy der Mann]

Well, that's too bad for you. See, what you view as "the real world" will soon become "the corporation-dominated world". But we'll live in whatever's left of the free world.

Farewell.

Apache Licence

[smartr]

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

Re:Apache Licence

[pinky0x51]

Yes, GPLv3 is compatible to the Apache License v2.

Re:Apache Licence

[fsmunoz]

Yes,it's compatible. I don't see it explicitly in the final documentation, but it was mentioned in a previous comment (GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale:

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.

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

[gowen]

Linux relicensing won't happen. It pretty much can't happen. Any contributor to any file that does not have "or later version" (and there are many) in the license would have to sign off on the change. Some of them are dead, so you'd probably have to track down their descendants / executors.

Of course, OpenSolaris may use GPL3 for exactly that reason.

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

[Bruce Perens]

Linux relicensing won't happen. It pretty much can't happen.

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

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...

Re:OpenSolaris

[kripkenstein]

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. 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).

Re:OpenSolaris

[trifish]

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).

note nice!

[Spazmania]

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?

If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.

Hey, that's not nice! Some pretty remarkable software has been written on T-Shirts that are much shorted than the GPL.

Re:Yea-eah!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not chocolate.

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?

Re:Do what now?

[Archangel Michael]

Because you missed it the first time .....

http://web.sourceforge.com/news_archive/2007/1799. php

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.

Holiness Unto the Prophet

[WED Fan]

There is no God but FOSS and Stallman is its Prophet. Peace be upon him. The writ of holy scripture GPL shall burn into the souls of the infidel. If they do not submit, as the Prophet, holiness is his name, to the will of God, then we will force governments to ban the infidels. We will use the holy war of antitrust on the infidel. God wills it, we are the followers of God and its Prophet, paradise awaits him.

There is not God but FOSS.

Stallman is its Prophet.

The Holy Writ of God is GPL.

Re:Holiness Unto the Prophet

[fsmunoz]

Heathen!

There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.

Sainthood in the Church of Emacs requires living a life of purity--but in the Church of Emacs, this does not require celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Being holy in our church means installing a wholly free operating system--GNU/Linux is a good choice--and not putting any non-free software on your computer. Join the Church of Emacs, and you too can be a saint!

Re:Holiness Unto the Prophet

[glwtta]

Stop and say to yourself people. It is only a license. There are more important things in life.

By definition, there is only one thing for which there are no more important things in life. This may not be that thing (whatever it is), but it's still important - for many of us it has a significant impact on several facets of our professional lives.

(also, I'm pretty sure Stallman hasn't actually killed anyone)

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?

Re:Time for Sun to Shine

[fsmunoz]

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

Re:Time for Sun to Shine

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Right, I don't think Linux can ever leave GPL2 - too many authors, known and unknown, insufficient licensing. So, now if we assume that GPL3 is a better GPL than GPL2, and will lead to more "Free" (adjective sense) software, what does a community that values freedom above other concerns do? One could argue that section 3 of the DFSG is biased towards a GPL3 kernel over a GPL2 kernel. NexentaOS has already shown that Debian (Ubuntu) on OpenSolaris can be done technically.

Java and Solaris are already open source and it hasn't made much of a difference.

But not with a popular license. I'm not interested in hacking on a CDDL-licensed Java. A GPL3'ed Java, yes.

Java on the desktop is still shunned and it will probably never be adopted significantly outside of enterprise data entry applications.

Because of bigotry or technical failings? Having a developer-friendly license can help with at least the latter.

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.

Anecdotally, I've seen the opposite, but regardless it's not going away in the web space. It's also really picking up momentum in the embedded space. I'm using it for a project I'm doing, and I've seen more new J2ME apps for my Palm (Google, Opera, etc.) in the past 6 months than in the past 6 years.

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.

So, there's the issue of if GPL2 and GPL3 can be made compatible. RMS thinks they can't. I think that stands on his arbitrary line for linking, and that there's room for debate. Sun, at least, thinks drivers can move from linux to Solaris.

I agree, the OpenSolaris userland isn't all that interesting, but the kernel is pretty good, better than Linux in some cases.

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.

Here's one Sun-hater who thinks that could happen.

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?

Freedom. That may not be significant enough to motivate you, but don't discount its power in the hacker community. The GPL has its detractors, but there's real evidence that many coders are inspired by it.

Re:Time for Sun to Shine

[eviltypeguy]

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.

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.

No, but...

[SuperKendall]

It's the perfect thing to read while waiting in line FOR an iPhone!

Re:To all those complainers

[BrianGKUAC]

Because the world needs yet another open source [browser, window manager, package management system, text editor, torrent client, ftp client, full distro, etc.] . In the world of Idealists someone needs to be pragmatic. Find an existing [browser, window manager, package management system, text editor, torrent client, ftp client, full distro, etc.] that gives you 99% of what you want. You'll find that you don't need the other 1%.

Sound familiar?

Re:To all those complainers

[Archangel Michael]

Yes.

How many [browser, window manager, package management system, text editor, torrent client, ftp client, full distro, etc.] do you need (choice wise) before you have 99% of what you need in what is available??

The answer is "one", unless the one that exists doesn't have what you need (security, stability, features etc).

There are, in the world of "open source" and "free software" already a myriad of licenses. I can name about 12 off the top of my head. Each, more or less, provides the use with free software that is community supported. Some licenses are really free (BSD), others not so (GPL3).

I can see the usefulness of most of these license and why someone would choose one or the other. Personally I'm a BSD style kind of guy, free is free is free. But I also understand the reasoning behind the likes of GPL3 and other restrictive licenses (ie control of the code and everything the code touches).

There is, however, a broad range of choices out there, all "free" or "open" licenses.

BTW, my opinion on GPL3 is the unintended consequences of GPL3 is going to be large fractures withing the Gnu/Linux/Gnome(KDE) environment, requiring seperated "distribution" channels. I can foresee the need for two or more install media to separate out what is GPL2, GPL3, and other licensed software, where one install media would do (RedHat GPL2 disk, RedHat GPL3 disk, RedHat Apache Disk etc). There is going to be a huge artificial wall of separation that is going to be problematic in the long term, mainly because it is not needed, or required by end users, but rather needed by licensing requirements.

Looks like they got the MS Lawyer

[tjstork]

I have to admit that I am more than a bit put off by the excessive wording and length of this license.

I think if I put out free software, I'm going to put it into the public domain, and I would encourage people to do the same. The fixation on limiting other people's profits from your work because you choose to do so is absurd, and in the days where it only costs $20 a month to give away a fairly large amount of source code to a fairly large amount of people, the whole point of linking the publication of the source with the distribution of a derived work is largely obsolete.

The GPL is starting to shape up as something that redistributes rights more than actually creates new ones. Software developers publishing under the GPL essentially have to waive their patent rights, waive their copyrights, so that consumers will benefit from software. Seriously, why do you care if someone gets rich off of what you wrote for free? Honestly, I'd almost rather have that, knowing that what I did made someone something, rather than none at all. Somebody else's profits do not block you from anything, and trying to make other people not earn money and not close software seems more jealousy than any practical social concern.

The absolute freest you can make your software is public domain, because public domain doesn't take away someone else's right to do something with it, and the GPL does.

Re:To all those complainers

[zsau]

Real question is, how many proprietary software licences are there? Just about every proprietary software producer has at least one...

Re:To all those complainers

[the_womble]

In what way is the GPL not free? It prevents you restricting the freedom of others. You can do exactly what you like with GPLed code: change it, sell it, use it as a platform for software using a different license, etc.

I can foresee the need for two or more install media to separate out what is GPL2, GPL3, and other licensed software

An interesting twist on anti-GPL FUD. As GPL software is already distributed on the same install media as BSD, MIT, MPL, QPL and proprietary licences, why do you think seperate install media are going to be needed for different versions of the GPL?

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?