Slashdot Log In
RMS Explains GPLv3 Draft 3
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Apr 04, 2007 01:32 PM
from the discussion-drafts-doing-their-job dept.
from the discussion-drafts-doing-their-job dept.
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "A transcript is now online of a talk Richard Stallman gave in Brussels earlier this week about the discussion draft 3 of GPLv3. Among other things, he explained how it will address the Novell-MS deal, from Novell's point of view and from Microsoft's, and he explained how the tivoisation clause was narrowed to make it more acceptable in the hope that it will be used by more people. After the talk he also gave an interview, and yesterday, draft 2 of LGPLv3 was released."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: FSF Releases Third Draft of GPLv3 390 comments
johnsu01 writes "The Free Software Foundation has announced publication
of the third discussion draft of the
GNU General Public License Version 3. Because quite a few changes have been
made since the previous draft and important new issues have surfaced, the
drafting process has been extended and revised to
encourage more feedback. The most
significant changes in this draft
include refinements in the "tivoization" provisions to eliminate unwanted side
effects, revision of the patent provisions to prevent end-runs around the
license, and further steps toward compatibility with other free software
licenses. The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new
patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I wish for a ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, telling me that the GPL is obvious and that I'm stupid for not understanding it won't save me if I run into legal problems associated with the GPL. And I will have to spend money on an IP attorney to help me. It would be stupid to think that, without legal training and a license in my state, I know the law and can interpret a contract accordingly.
Yeah, it would be nice if it were so easy that I didn't need a lawyer. Then again, if laws and contracts were so obvious, why are there courts?
Incorrect answer (most of the time): Because everyone is dishonest and trying to screw the other guy.
Re:I wish for a ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a contract, it's a software licence, which isn't the same thing in law.
And it is stupid to have such things as EULA's which only a lawyer could possibly understand the full meaning and implications of - but haven't all the millions of computer users the world over "agreed" to them without such an understanding? Or has everyone else received their classes in understanding the licences for Microsoft Windows and Office, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Sun Java, Macromedia Flash and everything else that is loaded on their PCs as part of their basic education, on a day I was off school?
The question is whether the GPL (any version) is harder to understand than any other licence. If not, then you don't need a lawyer just for the GPL v3.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For bonus points, can you please tell us in correct plain English what a "software licence" is in law (and in what jurisdictions)?
I rather doubt that. In most places, you can't enter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether the GPL (any version) is harder to understand than any other licence. If not, then you don't need a lawyer just for the GPL v3.No, you are wrong. All of us who agree to those contracts (EULAs) are crossing our fingers and hoping it all works out or are ignorant of the law. As individual users we do not, so far(we'll see), have much to worry about when we blindly agree to those EULAs.
But as a developer or corporate user, I have much to worry about.
No sir, I like to have my ducks in a
Yes it must be by a lawyer. (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS often says what he wants GPL to mean. That is very different from what the leg
Re:Yes it must be by a lawyer. (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but as far as I understand it this is not actually true. Public statement from the author(s) of a license will affect the decision a judge makes if it ever comes to a trial. IBM lawyers used newletters published by AT&T where they clarified certain points in their license in the SCO case to show that SCO's interpretation of the license was not the same as AT&T's. So if it ever comes down to the question "what does this sentence here actually mean?" a judge will definitely look at any statements made by the FSF.
Where the law and the text of the license are clear there won't be much discussion, but both law and licenses are not science and open for many interpretations, that's why we need judges.
Parent
Re:Yes it must be by a lawyer. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good point. When the intent of something is in doubt, it is common for judges to look to the context of things to determine what makes sense. Where things really get hairy is if I use the GPL to license my own work. In that case, am I bound by RMS's interpretation of the license? I may interpret the license differently (and provide my own FAQ about what I think it means). The reality is that in many cases, the FSF view of the license won't matter since the FSF is neither issuing or receiving the license.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think you would be hard pressed to offer a different interpretation from the one profferred by Eben Moglen and company. And you can't give an interpretation that is directly contrary to the language of the license, as you
Re: (Score:2)
Compatibility with patent-nullification licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot of software out there being developed under licenses which aren't compatible with the GPL, because the GPL doesn't allow patent nullification clauses -- this is dangerous, because the purpose of these clauses is to keep someone from slipping code into a major project that they have a patent for, and then torpedoing the whole thing later on when it's crept into wider use. I don't know if this issue just wasn't foreseen when GPL2 was written up, but I can't think of a more pressing issue at the moment.
Yeah, "Tivo-ization" and web services may keep some software out of the hands of the public, but they're not nearly as downright dangerous as submarine patents are.
[1] Examples: IBM Public License 1.0, Common Public License 1.0, Apache License v2, or any of the other licenses where the FSF cheerfully comments "We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL."
Re:Compatibility with patent-nullification license (Score:5, Informative)
As it is currently drafted, the GPL v3 has a patent-nullification clause itself: section 11. Furthermore, it allows under section 7 that derivative works have "Additional Terms" that are not in the GPL, but not incompatible with the idea of Free Software. The goal of section is to have less free software licenses that are GPL-incompatible; which directly addresses your question
Sadly, the Apache License v2 will probably remain incompatible with the GPL, even GPL v3. As desribed in the Rationale document [fsf.org], section 4.4, not because of the patent termination clause; but because Apache License v2's section 9 states that downstream redistributors must agree to indemnify upstream licensors under certain conditions.In any case, if you have comments on the latest(L)GPL v3 draft, the FSF's comment page [fsf.org] is the best place to do it. The reason this whole GPL v3 thing takes so much time (the first draft for GPL v3 was published Monday, January 16, 2006!) is that the FSF takes serious comments seriously (and of course, because of certain vendors' deals as well).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the GPlv3 does the same so unless they have some specific clause allowing it, it could be in the same boat.
About Apache compatibility (Score:3, Informative)
FSF have tried all along to achieve compatibility with the Apache licence. The current status is that the patent language is now similar enough for the two licences to be compatible in that respect, but a new problem has been found which would make them incompatible. I expect a solution is being looked for.
This is discussed in the transcript in the section Patent retalisation and the Apache licence [fsfeurope.org] (the transcript is split into sections and there is a menu for easy navigation and linking).
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not Apache are willing to drop their patent terms remains to be seen tho'.
Not patents, indemnity (Score:4, Informative)
GPLv3 has been made compatible with Apache's patent clause.
Parent
Why is Apache compatibility important? (Score:2)
Re:Why is Apache compatibility important? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Compatibility with patent-nullification license (Score:2)
IANAL, but I seem to remember reading some time long ago that if a person or company were to do that then they would, in the US at least, end up fscking up any patent case they'd make. Probably the worst they could manage would be to require the project to stop using the patented code.
Why GPL3? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why GPL3? (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree completely.
Yes, the GPLv2 was/is a great license, but it isn't perfect. The FSF's main concern is that certain companies start to distribute software/devices that is in accordance with the letter of the GPLv2, but not with its spirit (specifically freedoms 2 and 3: the freedom to change the program to your own needs, and distribute changes). Example: Tivo.
Also, GPLv2 was written at a time where software patents weren't considered possible, even in the worst nightmares. Today, they are a reality in many parts of the world.
Besides Tivoisation and patents, there are some other good things in the GPL v3, as it is currently drafted. It will be no longer necessary to provide source code via snail mail if you distribute binaries without source. This is the 21st century, providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge will be sufficient.
Yes, there is resistance to the GPL v3, especially to the earlier drafts (drafts 1 and 2). That's what this long comment period is about. The FSF is taking serious comments seriously. Also, there was opposition in 1991 about GPL v2 as well. Some resistance doesn't mean the whole thing sucks.
And if the GPL v2 continues to be fine by you, you are free to continue to use GPL v2 for your own software. Or dual license "GPL v2 or v3" if you want to stay compatible with GNU software. The FSF would argue that "GPL v2, or at the user's option, any later version" is even better.
Parent
Re:Why GPL3? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's called defensive licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I recall correctly, I first came across open source in 1993, when I read some fairly persuasive essays about it by RMS. I was initially sceptical of the GPLs share-alike restricitons. I recall RMS arguing that the nascent open-source movement didn't have the resources, code base, or more-or-less "head start" that proprietary software had, and they must give themselves a leg up by creating software that was only available ot themselves. This was pa
CLEAR! (Score:5, Funny)
RMS: Any response?
(EMS takes pulse of GPL3, shakes his head)
RMS: Alright, let's try watering down some of the shriller provisions. CLEAR! (RMS applies paddles to GPL3's chest again. It twitches, then lays still)
RMS: Anything?
EMS (peering into GPL's eyes) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any Linus signs whatsoever.
Crow T. Trollbot
Novell - MS Deal Great for GPL v3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're point is perfectly valid but my point is that it's not happening, and it probably should be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The switch to using GPL v3 is the best thing that could have happened to closed source because it will blow the OSS community apart into incompatibly licenced pieces.
A sad day indeed.
Unlikely, in my humble opinion. Let's go for worst case... about half of the software projects out there currently under GPLv2 gets relicensed to GPLv3, and likewise for LGPL. Then there are 2 potential problems:
Ah, Richard, you're beautiful (Score:5, Funny)
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. I haven't laughed so hard in my life.
backward persective. (Score:4, Funny)
heinousjay thinks this is funny:
"there is no possible ethical way you could use [a game console]"
What's not funny is how the console may use you. The point of software freedom is to avoid malicious use by the software's owner of the type seen in cell phone tapping. If the software is not free, you can't know what the device is doing. Giving your money to people who abuse you is a bad idea. The viewpoint is extreme, but consistent and sensible.
Now, something that is funny is Steve-o's iPod and Google "brainwash". [slashdot.org] The only reason he does not like either is because they represent another company's product. His language is just as disrespectful as his company and the picture drawn is simple bully.
Parent
Re:backward persective. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate to be the devil's advocate on this argument, because I really like free software (though I can't bring myself to whole-kool-aid on the morality argument)...
The software being open-source doesn't give me the ability to know what the device is doing any more than the law being published and accessible gives me the ability to be my own lawyer. It merely allows lawyers (or independent software developers) to exist. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code go into modern working software, and a bit of trust on the part of the average end-consumer is strictly necessary regardless of the visibility nature. The average end-consumer simply doesn't have the time to learn enough computer science to eye-verify every line of code in every piece of software they run.
I trust open-source because many eyes have seen it, and my experience has been that those eyes are not in heads that are actively engaged in the business of doing evil. I trust much closed-source from big companies because the situations where actively lying to the customer is long-term profitable are more rare than many think they are. It's true that only one of these avenues has even the potential for exploitation, but if we always kept to the safe paths we'd miss out on half the fun, eh?
It's not a morality question. It's a risk-reward question.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW (and to supply only a little bit of context) when he said that he was so sleepy that he had to remain standing so that he wouldn't go to sleep during the interview. In such a case one can generally only respond properly with previously thought-out responses, and one doesn't notice even rather blatant consequences of what one says or does. (I once crossed a street with my eyes closed in such a state. Only later did I realize *THAT* I had been foolish, and it was the next day
Patent expansion? (Score:3)
But does it also prevent them from suing somebody downstream who inserts (or uses/distributes code where some middle-man inserted) additional code that infringes on OTHER patents than the ones covering what they themselves inserted?
IMHO it SHOULD do the former and not the latter. Otherwise distributing GPLv3ed code would effectively wipe out a company's entire patent portfolio - which would inhibit companies who have and value such a patent collection (if only for defense against others) from using GPLv3.
But IANAL - and haven't even studied the draft. Can someone who understands law AND has studied the draft tell us if this pitfall was avoided?
Tricky section (Score:4, Interesting)
This actually has a few more conditions because we were trying to avoid covering certain other things, for instance, consider a patent parasite, one of those companies that has only one business which is to go around threatening people with patent law suits and making them pay. When this happens, the businesses that are attacked often have no choice but to pay them off. We don't want to put them in a position of being GPL violators as a result. So we put in a condition: "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a business of distributing software". Patent parasites don't. As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph.
Really if one company is attacked for patent infringement on a piece of GPL'd software than every user is vulnerable and it's only a matter of time before the parasite makes the rounds through all the companies. I think the old form was better since it didn't allow a distributor to back down and pay them off, perhaps giving the community to gather and fight back. Of course the old version also allows an unscrupulous competitor to give their patents to a shell company with the understanding that the shell company will put the competition out of business...
Damn, patents suck.
RMS? (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome to the World of Nuclear Regulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Even with a seemingly simple set of conditions (i.e., the license terms), someone will figure out a nuance or caveat that will challenge the conventional interpretation, and gum up the works for everyone else. Regulations (or licenses) are principally legal matters, and as such, precedents and case studies are key to u
So tell me, RMS... (Score:2)
YET ...
we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products.
So which way is it? Are you giving or just not giving for everyone?
Tivoisation (Score:2, Insightful)
With my semi-informed viewpoint, I can see why TiVo did what they did.
TiVo wasn't really ever in the hardware business, they provide subscription services. If I can modify the kernel I can intercept the low level calls that retrieve the unit number and steal the service by providing a different one.
Then the next step is to let you run a modified kernel, but not let you use the ser
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the legal landscape is what's too complicated here. A certain level of complexity is necessary in anything intended to be functional on that landscape.
Parent
Re:Complexity (Score:5, Informative)
The GPLv2 is one of the simplest, straightforward software licenses I've ever seen. It uses plain English, virtually no legal jargon, and even includes a summary. And I always see people talking about GPL-this and GPL-that who don't appear to have even read it, much less understood it.
Now the GPLv3 is more complicated than the GPLv2, but the main reason for it having to be explained is because so many people already have misconceptions about it from the rumour mill and because of its novelty. I wouldn't say that the necessity for an explanation is inherently a cause for concern.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license [wikipedia.org]
Try explaining copyright law (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, you might want to try complaining about copyright law. Though what copyright tries to achieve (chopping ideas into discreet units and assigning ownership[1]) is so different from how ideas otherwise exist I can't imagine the law every being simple.
In many cases, the GPL makes dealing with copyright less complicated - because it's a de facto standard, because you can focus on the four freedoms instead of the minutiae
Re:Complexity (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe. But legalese is what you get when you take English and try to make it into an exact language, like say a programming. Unfortunately general conversation is absolutely horrible at this, so it is a lot like putting a square peg in a round hole.
That leads to a very odd style with a lot of defintions, not just in the front but through-out the document. Further, unlike say source code where the code is the actual execution, you need to spell everything in detail so that a court can narrow its way down to a detail and say true or false, or hopefully be so clear it never gets there. It certainly tends to get wordy, and information density is very low. Most people fail to see the nuances and see repetition without meaning and react with "All that to say so little?"
Third, you have to assume bad faith on the other party. Some of the paragraphs are specificly there to prevent circumvention attempts, for example legally subdividing yourself deliver signed software with one hand and DRM hardware with the other. Unless you exaplin the whole scenario, that part is almost impossible to understand.
So well, even when you try to make it simple it gets complicated. For example, let me summarize chapter 15: "No warranty and absolute waiver of liability". It is simple, perfectly understandable and would probably get torn apart in court. So you get this blurb:
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MER- CHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/ OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee."
Now, did it honestly say more than the one line above?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There are things which are actually difficult to understand, but which can't both be made simpler and also remain accurate.
It is a reasonable **GOAL** to have a really simple license. This doesn't mean that this goal can be achieved without sacrificeing other goals. Thing of it as an exercise in Linear Programming. It's an optimization problem: How to achieve a minimax in n dimensions over an m-dimensional space with a complicted metric. T
Re:more acceptable (Score:5, Funny)
KUDOS!
Parent