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

[qualidafial]

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

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.

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

[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

[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]

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?

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.

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

[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

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: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.

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: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: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."

No, but...

[SuperKendall]

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

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.

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?