GPLv3's Implications Hitting Home For Lawyers

Specter writes "The GPL version 3 is getting some attention in legal circles, especially as it relates to its interaction with proprietary software and patents. Edmund J. Walsh penned an article for Law.com discussing the GPLv3 and the risks it poses for hardware and software companies."

Neeeehhh, What's up, Doc?

[Stanistani]

Google: Bugs Bunny maroon

Re:GPL 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that fucked up to compare commercial activity with child molestation ?

GPL is NOT a fucking free license, you know and I know it and most of all, RMS knows it .

BSD is the license if someone is looking for true freedom.

Stop corrupting the true meaning of freedom with your activist orwelian definition of such ...

Re:What a stupid article

[mhall119]

Not only that, but he used the settlements of lawsuits from GPLv2 code to demonstrate what GPLv3 is doing to businesses. He also went on to imply that provisions of the Affero GPL were provisions of the GPL itself. Nothing in this article could be described as informed.

It was basically "I heard some things about the new GPL, and that there were some lawsuits about open-source code, so I'm going to write a definitive article explaining all the nuances and traps that businesses should be afraid of."

Define free software?

[walterbyrd]

Yes, the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD. But many free software advocates see that as a good thing.

The ideas behind the GPL, I think, are 1) stop msft from using their embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. 2) stop proprietary developers from using the code without giving anything back.

Re:Out of curiousity

[mhall119]

But by creating the need for "license compatibility," I have already exercised control over their code -- I have dictated the terms of the license.

No, you are exercising control of the distribution of your code, not their code. They are free to distribute their code however the want, but if they want to distribute your code, they have to do so by your rules. The BSD license is not any different in this regard, they just have fewer rules.

That license then gives me unfettered access to their changes to my code, which I can accept or reject. That is another flexing of control.

No, it only gives you access to their code if they distribute to you. If they don't give you a binary, they don't have to give you the source.

Re:GPL 3

[Zibri]

"BSD is the license if someone is looking for true freedom."

No, it forces me to attribute the work to original author, thus not free - and you know it.

Re:Article Worthless FUD

[galoise]

well, he doesn't make that distinction.

the proprietary characteristics of software that step into the ring with open source software are knocked out, unless the proprietary components are "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the [open source] work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program." Losing proprietary rights can be significant because those rights are frequently essential for any company seeking to profit from differentiated high-tech products.

There he jumped olimpically from "stepping into the ring" to losing propietary rights, even when he is quoting the exact conditions under which the "use" of GPLed work would waive some propietary rights.

The lack of that subtle distinction, in the written work of a reputed expert in IP issues is fishy and suspicious.

Re:GPL 3

[nhaines]

The GPLv3 doesn't require you to make source code available for web services. The related Affero GPL versions 2 and 3 do, however, since some web developers thought this was a loophole in the GPL. RMS didn't seem to think it was, but instead the FSF reviewed the Affero license and authorized its use of the name GPL as well.

The Affero GPL is fairly uncommon as far as I know, but as long as you keep to the GPL and away from the Affero GPL, you should be fine.

Re:Restrictions on which "users"? Muddled argument

[reebmmm]

there is as-yet little legal precedent in the US backing up any sort of EULA-type "agreement" that restricts how end users can actually use the end products.

Not true, but oft-cited on Slashdot. There are a number of cases at district court levels that have backed EULAs and a few appellate court cases too.

The ones that lose are typically those that impose huge burdens on the consumer: changes in law, venue, arbitration, etc. A recent case placed a limit on non-transfer clause, but the court hinted that the original purveyor was probably in breach, not the person that was actually sued.

There's a now out of date article from a couple years ago by Mark Lemley that discussed "terms of use": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917926 [ssrn.com]

Furthermore, EULAs aren't just software oriented. There is a long history of cases that impose restrictions from contracts that consumers don't get until, arguably, it's too late.

As such, *all* end users are essentially free to do what they want with software under *any* license, within the (admittedly obfuscated, and currently imperiled) bounds of copyright.

Simply not true; see above.

And I'm not sure what is imperiled about the bounds of copyright. If anything, they're about to be extended: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/acta-call-to-arms-no-more-secret.html [blogspot.com]

The GPL in all its various forms simply attempts to define that proper permission. If folks don't like what such permission entails, fine -- bloody well don't use GPL-covered code.

The funny thing is, many corporate entities would probably agree with you. A number of places I know have zero tolerance for OSS in their workplace, but those rebellious techies use it anyway.

Even those that are more accommodating are nevertheless hesitant because OSS comes in so many flavors, not just GPLv#. This makes managing obligations next to impossible.

Whining about not getting a free ride just makes people look like wankers. Whine, whine, whinge. Meh.

While, I'm sure there are some that would like to commercially exploit the work of others, this is NOT the usual posture in which most companies encounter GPL/OSS. It's usually because some 3rd party contractor used it in a package the company intended to commercially sell or because an employee decided it would make their life easier. Then the problems become VERY acute.

Re:Lawyer he may be...

[morgan_greywolf]

Did you read the same TFA I did?

The article is very FUDdy in nature. For example:

The next legal fight could be an attempt to force release of proprietary server code due to some part of the output of the server constituting a "work" generated by open source components on the server.

Well, clearly not. A reading of the GPL will generally show that the 'output' of a program isn't covered by the license unless, say, the output of that program reproduces part of itself or another GPLed work, for example.

Companies are also required by the new GPL to license to others all patents they own or control related to open source software, even those not related to code they add to open source software, and even if they did not own the patents at the time they distributed the open source software. This provision applies whether that distribution is part of a conscious marketing strategy or a casual sharing with others outside the organization.

Complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD. The GPL's patent provisions only pertain to patents (whether currently existing, or existing in the future) that directly affect the particular software package conveyed. IOW, if Microsoft distributes the latest version of Samba, then it cannot subsequently sue the Samba developers or any recipients of the Samba code for patent infringement related to Samba.

Re:GPL 3

[collinstocks]

Charge for support or for some other service.

Re:GPL 3

[Mr2001]

If you want code open, then let it be open. If you want to control how or who uses your code, then don't make it free. At least be intellectually honest about it. The result of GPL3 is exactly the same as a EULA that restricts who and how software is run.

Nope. You're confusing "use/run" with "distribute". The GPLv3, like the GPLv2 and most other open source licenses, restricts how you may distribute the code, not how you may use it.

The GPLv3 is no more or less "intellectually honest" than the GPLv2 was, and the "political ax" is no different. The agenda of the GPL was, and is, to give end users the freedom to modify the software, redistribute their changed versions, and put those changed versions to effective use. The changes in the GPLv3 are there because some companies figured out a way to sneak around that last one.

In this case, RMS is wrong. If RMS was truly about "Free" as in "freedom" he would have chosen BSD style license, which has even less restrictions.

Maybe you should let him define what "free" means to him instead of substituting your own definition. Come on, you might as well be complaining that the BSD license takes away your "freedom" to distribute the software without a copyright notice or to use the authors' names in your advertising.

I even go further and will predict to you that GPL4 will be even more restrictive as people figure out ways around the restrictions of GPL3 that RMS doesn't like. Care to make a wager?

If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise?

Re:Lawyer he may be...

[KutuluWare]

Which errors of fact, in particular, are you speaking about? His article is pretty short on facts -- his point is so simple and obvious he really doesn't need many. But the ones I see are pretty dead on. In fact, he seems light years ahead of many software developers with his understanding of F/OSS based on this statement:

Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software.

Beyond that, his facts seem to be basically the following:

• Companies that are violating the GPL are being rightfully sued for it and settling.
• The new version of the GPL explicitly restricts things, like the Tivo situation and web services, that used are legal loopholes in the GPLv2
• Distributing software covered by the GPL v3 imposes new limitations on how you use your patent portfolio.
• Things your company used to rely on to make a profit, like keeping trade secrets and requiring patent licenses and forcing support contracts for upgrades, all may now fall afoul of the GPL v3.

His conclusion: If you're going to use GPLv3 software, make damned sure you know what you're doing. If you can't abide by the terms of the license -- don't use it.

I fail to see how any of this article is anything but common sense and a completely accurate assessment of how open source software works in a closed-source business.

Re:Sorry, it can't...

[Todd Knarr]

And this is a problem for me as the author of a GPLv3'd work how? My deal offered to you was "You can use my work as the basis for yours, but you have to let others do the same thing with yours as you did with mine.". Yes it may put a crimp in your plans to not let anyone else do that, but why as the author should I let you freely use my stuff as the basis for your product without any compensation in return? Just as with anything else, you either pay your supplier the price he wants, negotiate a different deal with him and pay according to that deal, or go without whatever the supplier was going to give you. Sure it'd be nice if the supplier just gave you stuff and never asked you to pay, but business doesn't work that way.

Is it anti-business for a businessman to demand that people pay him for what he's selling them? To say that if the customer isn't willing to pay, they don't get to walk out the door with the product anyway? I don't think so.

Re:GPL 3

[Jherek Carnelian]

Don't like Tivo cause you can't "hack" it? Then don't buy one. Build your own instead, using the EXACT SAME GPL software Tivo uses. How come this isn't good enough for people like RMS is beyond me.

I suspect this will fall on deaf ears, but WTH...

RMS's defining moment was when his printer wouldn't work. The printer driver had a bug and he could not fix it because the driver's source code was not available.

This was his printer (well technically his department's) and yet he was dead in the water - there was nothing he could do to fix it. Buying another printer was not an option - the money had been spent. Sure he could try to reverse engineer and printer driver from scratch and write it correctly. But with no guarantee of success that sure sounds like a poor way to do things.

So he decided that such a situation sucks, sucks big time, and so he decided to make a difference and change the way the world works so that other people would not find themselves in such a situation.

THAT's why "build your own tivo" is not good enough for people like RMS.