FSF Releases Third Draft of GPLv3

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."

3rd-party Analysis?

[Erioll]

Are there any articles about this from 3rd-party sources, and not the FSF themselves? I'd really like some analysis that isn't from those that produced it.

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm]

Link [groklaw.net]

Read it over and over for the next 3 days.

Re:

[AlexGr]

By Peter Galli (eWeek)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2108409,00.as p [eweek.com]
The Free Software Foundation just published this morning a new draft of the last version of the General Public License, GPL3. This version takes aim specifically at the Microsoft and Novell agreement and seeks to prevent future similar agreements. Peter Galli/eWEEK reported on the news questioning if this new version will forever doom the license. "The draft has evolved over time, but GPLv3 is still clearly designed to build unscalabl

Re:

[duplicate-nickname]

Ok, I just pasted the wrong URL:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4747 [zdnet.com]

Can they do that?

[venicebeach]

The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal

Is that really an option? Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it was distributed and agreed to? I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3-- and even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?

Re:

[kosmosik]

> Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it
> was distributed and agreed to?

GPL v2 has a clause that the licensed code (or whatever) is aviable on GPL v2 basis or any further version of GPL. Linux uses GPL v2 without this clause.

> I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without
> going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3

Linus specificaly stated that he is against using GPL v3 in its current form. Also it would be hard to change Linux license since

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

Linus specificaly stated that he is against using GPL v3 in its current form.

Actually, he probably meant draft-2 form. The current form didn't exist when he said that :-) .

Besides, specific objections are more helpful. Like he is against some DRM-related terms. I have gone over some of those terms here [technocrat.net], you might find that useful.

Bruce

Re:

[shaitand]

'Is that really an option?'

Yes

'Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it was distributed and agreed to?'

No. Novell would still be able to work with GPLv2 stuff. Just not GPLv3 stuff.

'I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3-'

Why? Nobody is really concerned about Novell borrowing patented Microsoft concepts to include into the Operating System. The areas of concern of Novell's contributions to projects like Sam

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

You missed the part about "upgrading Linux to GPL3". Some people out there think Linus controls the license to all of what goes into a distribution, not just the kernel.

Everybody: Linux is just the kernel. Linus does not control anything else, and has less than absolute control over that.

Bruce

Re:Good luck.

[Bruce Perens]

but it isn't possible to run a gpl2 userland without the linux kernel.

Say what? Where do you think it was developed before Linux came along?

On Sun. RMS used to program on a Sun. GNU LIBC existed before it was ported to Linux. GCC did. Emacs did. Most of the userland did. Linus Torvalds did the last part, not the first.

I can think of a lot of kernels besides HURD and Minix. You could start with BSD and Solaris, but that's hardly the end of the list.

Bruce

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

Is it really "less free?" I thought free was free. The CDDL just reads like a bastardized LGPL with patent termination language.

I didn't really consider Sun as wanting to be a sincere partner in the Free Software community, due to their starting out by making incompatible licenses. I think they figured that out now. And Jonathan doesn't say stupid stuff about us all the time any longer. So, I am waiting for them to drop the CDDL, since even they seem to think it's a dead-end now. So it might be moot wheth

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

If you look into Sun's early history, they have reason to be more angry about patents than anyone. They got sued by IBM really early in their history. But back when they made CDDL, they weren't singing a cooperative tune. So, I'm not sure I believe this was just a patent thing. If they'd wanted better patent language in the GPL, they could have done what Afero did, and get a special version of the GPL out of FSF.

Bruce

No, there's nothing retrospective

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

No, retrospective changes are not an option, and no, FSF is not trying to do any. "Retrospective" was just a bad choice of words.

The decision is whether the patent deal provisions should apply to all such patent deals, including the Novell-MS one, or only patent deals that are made from now on.

So the question to the community is: Do Novell deserve to be let off?

And the question to Novell is: What promise can you make to earn the communities trust so that they could justify letting you off?

(I've also clarif

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

Yes. What RMS was asking for was whether GPL3 code should include pernicious terms, from the start, that apply to people who had already committed a deal like the Novell-Microsoft one on GPL2 code but not yet on GPL3 code. The other option is to wait until said scoundrels commit the same deal on GPL3 code.

Bruce

Re:

[MMC Monster]

Allowing exceptions is opening pandora's box. The unintended consequences could potentially be much worse than just the Micosoft/Novell deal. For instance, what happens if Novell gets bought out by IBM? What if they were bought out by someone like SCO?

Better not to make any specific grandfather clause in the license. If someone doesn't want to follow the license, they just don't use any of those applications/libraries.

Re:Can they do that?

[Bruce Perens]

I'm going to have to correct myself. The specific sentence in square brackets, which means it's proposed but not accepted, would exempt anyone who has made a Novell-Microsoft-like agrement before today from enforcement of the terms even on GPL3 software. So, FSF is really asking "should we let Novell and Microsoft off, and just apply this to future violators?" I don't think they'll do that.

Bruce

Retroactively?

[Mr.Ned]

"The FSF has also explicitly asked the community whether the new patent provisions should apply retroactively to the Microsoft-Novell deal."

I didn't see that in any of TFAs; does anyone have a link?

Re:

[roscivs]

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that any license could do to prevent the following scenario:

1) Microsoft asserts that Linux violates its patents
2) Microsoft fails to provide any evidence or back up this claim in court
3) Microsoft signs an agreement with Novell stating that they covenant not to sue any users of Novell's brand of Linux

This sort of evil FUD will work pretty much no matter what, and it's pretty much what's happening now. There's absolutely nothing that I can think of that would legally

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

While you can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, you can use terms of your license to prevent Microsoft and its partners from distributing your software once they do this. And in this case, MS has a written covenant to the Novell customer, which is ample evidence to show a judge. In addition, the actual terms of the agreement will come out with the 10-Q report for Novell, and that's evidence too.

Bruce

Re:

[roscivs]

While you can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, you can use terms of your license to prevent Microsoft and its partners from distributing your software once they do this. And in this case, MS has a written covenant to the Novell customer, which is ample evidence to show a judge. In addition, the actual terms of the agreement will come out with the 10-Q report for Novell, and that's evidence too.

I disagree. The terms of the license might be able to prevent Microsoft from distributing your software, but th

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

I disagree. The terms of the license might be able to prevent Microsoft from distributing your software, but they can't put any restrictions on the benefactor of Microsoft's covenant without devolving into silliness.

Actually, they really could, as long as there is a contract or agrement to shield users between the party making the covenant to users and the partner who is doing the distribution of GPL3 software.

But in this case it's even more clear, since Microsoft is distributing coupons that can be redee

Re:

[roscivs]

Actually, they really could, as long as there is a contract or agrement to shield users between the party making the covenant to users and the partner who is doing the distribution of GPL3 software.

What's the purpose if it happens to block the means of the current shadiness, but there are plenty of other means left unblocked that will achieve the same ends? In other words, once the GPLv3 is released, Microsoft can just stop doing any distribution themselves (that hardly affects their position), and make the

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

I think we're not really protecting the freedom of GPL code if we allow some people to be licensed to run the code and some not to be. That's the point of the GPL2 language to put everyone in the same boat regarding patents. But we saw that the language was not sufficient because someone constructed a loophole around it. We can't assure that we can protect against all loopholes, but we can try our best and revise when necessary.

The Novell-Microsoft deal really strikes at developer motivation. Why write "fre

Re:

[init100]

It could not prohibit the deal itself, but it could be possible to significantly impact Novell's ability to distribute code covered by the new license, and this is what it is trying to accomplish. Novell is knowingly distributing code that its partner asserts patents against, and the partner provides a promise not to sue to Novell's customers, but nobody else.

Re:

[roscivs]

Novell is knowingly distributing code that its partner asserts patents against, and the partner provides a promise not to sue to Novell's customers, but nobody else.

But its partner isn't "asserting patents against" in any legal way, they're just saying in vague ways that Linux probably violates some Microsoft patent somewhere. Furthermore, Microsoft's covenant to sue doesn't require Novell to be party to the agreement for it to work its evil.

For example, let's say Microsoft covenants not to sue RedHat Linux

Re:

[HRbnjR]

It's section 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 which are meant to cover this. As I read them (not a lawyer), these basically say: "If you convey GPL'd software to someone, and grant them a patent license for that copy of the software, then that license is automatically extended to all recipients of the software. You may not convey GPL'd software if, for doing so, you are paying someone else to license their patents to your recipients."

Does that not stop this? Looks like it would to me. I'm not so sure I like the f

Re:

[roscivs]

It's section 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 which are meant to cover this. As I read them (not a lawyer), these basically say: "If you convey GPL'd software to someone, and grant them a patent license for that copy of the software, then that license is automatically extended to all recipients of the software. You may not convey GPL'd software if, for doing so, you are paying someone else to license their patents to your recipients."

Does that not stop this? Looks like it would to me. I'm not so sure I like the fact

Sadly...

[Infinityis]

I remember when freedom wasn't quite so complicated and obfuscated. With things getting so verbose and convoluted, more people will probably eschew things like GPLv3 just to keep things unpretentious.

Re:Sadly...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Freedom under the GPL has always been complicated, because it means free-as-in-FSF. As I've observed before, that isn't the same as "free" by any English language definition, which would be more akin to a BSD-style licence.

The problem we're now seeing is that the FSF is redefining its own concept of free to match whatever behaviour it currently perceives to be in conflict with the ethics of those driving it. They're welcome to do that, of course, but it's beyond me why anyone else (including those who distribute their code under GPL2) would care, unless their personal ethics happen to match the FSF's exactly. Then again, I also rather suspect that a lot of people who distribute their code under the GPL do so because it's trendy in certain circles rather than because they've ever read the fine print anyway, so I'm already doomed to unhealthy karma oblivion. ;-)

How h FSF-free changed meaning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the four essential freedoms. They are ALL about USER freedoms. The programmer who wrote the code has all the freedoms they need: choose the license you want.

What other license looks for the users' freedoms? None. This has not changed. Just YOUR perception of what "FSF-free" means. You thought it meant YOUR freedom with someone else's code. Now you know different.

Re:Sadly...

[init100]

Freedom under the GPL has always been complicated, because it means free-as-in-FSF. As I've observed before, that isn't the same as "free" by any English language definition, which would be more akin to a BSD-style licence.

Would it? The BSD is akin to "You can do anything you want", while the GPL is akin to "You can do anything you want, except killing, raping, robbing or otherwise harming other people". The GPL is free, it just tries to stop people from restricting other peoples' freedom.

GPL is well meaning DRM for source code

[Kristoph]

The GPL may be noble but it certainly is not free. It is a set of rights to which you are bound as a developer that are by no means trivial. Major corporations, like IBM, have teams of GPL-specializing attorneys to ensure compliance with those rights.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, GPL is, in fact, source code DRM. If you want to use GPL licensed source you have to sign up to rules much as you have to sign up to rules when you but a tune from Apple. Again, I acknowledge that these are noble and genera

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

It's the difference between a free society and anarchy.

Bad example: anarchy means "no rulers", not "no rules". An anarchic society can also be a lawful and free society.

For that matter, I would go so far as to say that any society which is not anarchic cannot be lawful, because it contains, by definition, an organization not bound to follow the laws which bind the rest of society. Any universally lawful & free society must be anarchic. (This is not to say that all anarchic societies will necessari

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's fascinating to see an argument like this made about a licence whose supporters often claim that it would be unnecessary if copyright were abolished. :-)

In any case, I don't think your analogy (nor the more dramatic-sounding alternatives [slashdot.org]) is at all fair. If your code is truly free for others to use, then they should be able to do anything they want with it. Nothing any one person does with it will remove the ability of any other person to use your code in any other ways they see fit. There is no cost

Re:

[petrus4]

It's also quite trendy and fashionable these days to attack the FSF and the GPL for "not being free" by some other definition that people keep changing.

And how often we see people defending it writing under the label of Anonymous Coward. Truly lends credibility to the idea that the FSF are worth defending, doesn't it?

As for how the other definition keeps changing; it doesn't. My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:-

• Makes no discrimination aga

Good for lawyers

[kroepoek]

With such a long license, and so many companies now using free software in their products, I bet some will follow these simple steps:

1. Open a law firm
2. Interpret the GNU GPLv3
3...Profit!

simplicity is good for everyone, and v3 is simpler

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Clarity is good for everyone. The text is longer than v2, but it is more explicit and should be clearer. If you see a way to make it clearer, please submit a comment.

Here's some suggestions for how to increase simplicity [fsfe.org].

What happened to web apps?

[i_should_be_working]

I only skimmed the draft, but it seems in this whole Novel-Microsoft thing, the part about web-apps has been lost. There was talk about getting this base covered.

Right now if I write some code and GPL it someone can take that code, use it in the regular ways that is permitted by the GPL, but then instead of distributing it, they turn it into a web-app and charge people to use the code. Since they are not technically distributing the binaries, they don't have to release the code, whether they've modified it or not.

Re:What happened to web apps?

[cyclop]

And I've never understood why this is bad.

A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution. The code runs on the web server and never leaves it. So why should I bother about it? In what sense it's different from me modifying a GPL program on my machine only and having my friends using it on my machine?

Re:

[MajroMax]

A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution. The code runs on the web server and never leaves it.

There's little difference between running a binary on your computer and interacting with it and running a binary on someone else's computer and interacting with it. A web-app is no different than an app displayed through remote X-Windows. If you want to get legalistic, I could argue that putting the web app on the website isn't usage so much as performance.

In addition, the latest draf

Re:

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"A web app on a website is a source code usage, not distribution."

What's the real difference? Think of it as "virtual" distribution via the Web.
GPL was written before the rise of web apps, but as web apps have become more and more used, GPL must change with the times. Imagine that in the next 5 years, 80% of apps are web apps, and GPL doesn't cover them. GPL is pretty much useless then. Imagine that in the future, Microsoft makes a web version of Office. There'd be nothing preventing them from using GP

Re:What happened to web apps?

[Just Some Guy]

GPL was written before the rise of web apps

But it was written after the rise of console apps. To the best of my knowledge, if I hack a GPLv2 text app and you SSH into my server to run it, I don't have to give you the modified source. I'm not distributing the app to you - I'm just letting you execute it. In what way is that essentially different from running an application via a web service?

Re:

[i_should_be_working]

Well, if you as a code author don't have a problem with it, then it's not bad to you.

But I do think it goes against the spirit of the GPL. When a coder puts something under the GPL what they are usually meaning to say is "everyone who uses this app (and it's derivatives) should get the code too if they want it". Denying users the code to the web app that you are making them pay to use is taking away the freedom that the original author intended for them, IMO. If you modify some GPL'd code and let your frie

Reaction to GPLv3

[Experiment 626]

I'm curious how the adoption of GPLv3 will play out. The kernel is going to stay at v2 for the foreseeable future, so the new version will mostly apply to the GNU tool chain. There are enough companies out there who like the loopholes of v2 (TiVo, SuSE, etc.), will they maintain a fork of the code that stays licensed under v2, perhaps individually, perhaps as a collective effort amongst those with reason to balk at v3? Another possibility is to just keep on using versions of the code that were released under v2. Some things, like /bin/ls, really don't change enough that everyone will feel compelled to step up to the latest version. On the other hand, if the GNU software the company depends on is gcc, staying at a particular release and not having support for new processor technologies in your compiler would start to become problematic after a while.

So, how do you guys think the companies for whom adopting GPLv3 would eliminate loopholes will react to the new license? Somehow, I don't think they will just all go, "Oh, so that's how you intended Free Software to be used. We will play nicely from now on."

Re:Reaction to GPLv3

[Bruce Perens]

Tivo could live with a GPL3 kernel if they wanted to. I've explained how here [technocrat.net]. Novell? The big problems for them will be GNU LIBC, which everything uses, Samba, and many other programs. They run the risk of either falling behind or having their expenses jump significantly. But I hear the Linux business is up for sale, anyway, and that they will eventually break the company into several pieces. That's why it's called SuSE now, instead of "Novell Linux".

Bruce

Quick issues

[gclef]

A few thoughts from a *very* quick read of it:
  * They mention you need to supply "Corresponding Source" (eg, signing keys for Tivo-ization) to all "User Products" but defined "user Products" to basically mean anything that goes in the home. So business-style rack appliances that are not designed for the home can Tivo-ize at their leisure. This is apparently intentional, according to the rationale pdf. This seems....messy, and a huge potential hole.

  * Moving away from calling out specific parts of the US code for the anti-DMCA parts and over to calling out the WIPO is a bit better for international users of the GPL, but they then call out US code again in the definition of a home device. This is problematic. Defining a for-the-home product in other countries will be difficult. (What do we do for this license in countries that have no such distinction?) They seem to acknowledge this in the rationale PDF, and say that they're evaluating it.

(Personally, I think these two issues are just the beginning of the uglyness with the anti-tivo-ization stuff, and they'll eventually be forced to drop these clauses in the name of sanity, but that's just me.)

  * The anti-Novell portion is *incredibly* confusing. There has to be a better way to say that. It seems to be written just to target Novell and the specific thing Novell is doing, which I think invites problems. For example, what if the third party you make a deal with isn't in the business of distributing software? (such as the patent/IP houses that exist all over the place) Is a "we won't sue your customers" deal okay then? This section needs a *lot* more thought.

two non issues ..

[rs232]

'defined "user Products" .. anything that goes in the home. So business-style rack appliances .. can Tivo-ize at their leisure .. This seems....messy, and a huge potential hole'

'Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a commercial entity [fsf.org] intending to use the product for commercial purposes', rationale.pdf

'what if the third party you make a deal with isn't in the business of distributing software?'

Well

Re:

[gclef]

1) I think you're missing my point: I'm not concerned about companies being able to go after home devices used in the corporation. I'm concerned about manufacturers using the "it's not for the home" exemption to avoid those terms of the license alltogether.

2) So Novell signing a MS-style patent deal with a patent shop (ie, only Novell customers won't get sued) is okay? I really doubt that's the intent.

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

While User Products are now going to be required to come with information on how to change the software, that doesn't mean you get to Tivo-ize in non-user products. The DRM provisions apply equally to non-user products. What the User Product terms mean is that you don't have to tell people with non-user-products how to construct a JTAG cable to reflash the product. You can make them figure that out by themselves.

Bruce

Re:

[gclef]

That may be the intent, but I'm not sure that comes across in the wording. The wording just says:

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

Re:

[cpuffer_hammer]

The "User Products" thing seems to stem from the fact that some large government and industrial customers do not want to have control of these keys.

If that is the case why not simply allow the keys to be held by the provider till they are requested. Then the customer can not request the keys, but if requested the must be provided.This would allow the companies and governments that do not want there rights to have it their way. While other customers would not be forced to by only "User Products". Or if someo

Freedom Means People Do Things You Don't Like

[geoffrobinson]

My freedom ends at the tip of your nose. Stallman's intentions for greater freedom may be good. But I have the feeling he wants to control the behavior of other people.

Real freedom is allowing people to use free software for good or ill.

where are my royalties ..

[rs232]

'My freedom ends at the tip of your nose'

How would you feel if I demanded royalty payments for your Linux desktop that you didn't buy from me.

Still no Apache/GPL compatibility

[Wesley Felter]

Looks like the FSF has admitted failure in one of the major goals of GPLv3; they're no longer trying to be compatible with the Apache License 2.0. It frustrates me that they are solving problems like "Tivoization" but not this. Maybe the ASF can create an Apache 2.1 license to solve this.

My opinion is...

[suv4x4]

IANAL, but OMG FFS FSF, GPL3 can't work AB. AFAIUI, we need GPL3 AEAP, if Novell/MS's deal 2B AMF.

Re:

[Joey Vegetables]

It scares me that I almost understand what you just said.

Concerns for the GPLv3

[Roger W Moore]

I now have two concerns about the GPLv3 after trying to wade through that document:

1) Will I be able to understand the license? (and if not do I really want to release code under it?) I would strongly suggest a non-legalase summary be included in the final version.

2) Will it actually be worth anything outside the US? Every single legal reference pointed to US law, they take definitions from existing US laws and they comment that certain provisions are compatible with US law. I'm beginning to wonder if RMS and co. realize that a majority of the world lives outside the US.

Perhaps they are attempting to concentrate on US law and then branch out into the rest of the world later but to me that seems a somewhat dubious tactic since the thing looks so complex at the moment that I'm not convinced that it can be compatible with multiple countries' laws all at once. So I also wonder if there will end up being multiple versions of GPLv3 as you go around the world.

Re:

[Jerry Coffin]

Well, a daft post anyway -- but certainly not the first.

"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

GPLv3 cannot be retroactive.

The question asked is whether the provisions that prevent deals such as the MS-Novell deal should have an explicit exclusion for that deal by Novell. i.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?

That's the question asked.

Re:

[ivan256]

.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?

That's *not* what it says, again because there is no legal grounds for that anywhere.

The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software. That simply means that if the software violates the patent, then end user, not the distributor, is always responsible for the infring

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[Bruce Perens]

The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software.

You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone. The point is that you can't create privileged groups like "people who have paid lots of money for protection" who have more rights than others.

I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.

Bruce

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[ivan256]

You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone.

The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone. Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.

I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.

It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[Bruce Perens]

It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.

It's based on the principle: we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Bruce

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[shaitand]

'The fact of the matter is that under a deal like the Microsoft/Novell deal, the distributor of the GPLed software doesn't have the right to grant the protection to everyone.'

True. That is the point.

'Thus the clause means they can't grant it to anybody. The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.'

You make it sound like the result would be users open to litigation. The distributor can't just distribute the software to users anyway, they lose their right to distribute under the GPLv3. There will be no unprotected users because the patent encumbered modified version is barred from distribution to users. Rather than some users being protected and downstream users being screwed, there will be no users unless the vendor removes patent encumbered code or negotiates a deal that DOES allow them to pass patent protections downstream.

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[raehl]

The only loser is the end-user of the software who has no hope of protection from patent suits if they want to use GPLv3 software.

You have this backwards. The requirement that the patent license is provided to everyone *IS* the protection against patent suits for using GPLv3 software.

If a company distributes software under GPLv3, then elects to sue someone for using that software in violation of a patent, they open themselves up to being sued for violating the copyrights in that software by other contributors. Because the contributors have said 'You may not copy my code if you don't give everyone a patent license to use it and the derivative works.'

Separately, you are also only looking at half of the equation. Some users who are willing to pay to not be sued may lose out on being able to have the software. BUT, that doesn't matter any more than it matters that I've 'lost' the ability to run Windows unless I buy it. What *IS* important is that the contributors to free software have the copyrights in THEIR work protected. They have agreed to distribute their work to the community so long as it can be freely redistributed. If you do not prohibit distribution of software with a patent license, you are allowing companies to take the free software, modify it with patent-encumbered software, then UN-freely redistribute it.

This strikes to the very core of what free software is. If you're going to use free software, then you need to provide free software. Patent encumbered software isn't free, and just like we wouldn't allow GPL software to end up in a proprietary binary sold for profit without source, EVEN THOUGH it denies some users that software, we shouldn't let it end up in patent-encumbered source either, EVEN THOUGH it also denies some users that software.

Preventing non-free software from being created with free software is the whole point, isn't it?

Re:

[ivan256]

Incidentally, my comment about "freedom" was more in regards to the "anti-tivoization" clause than the patent stuff. It seems very much like a DRM mentality.

DRM is usually used to prevent users from running some software or using some data on open systems. This new language is designed to prevent users from using GPL software on closed systems. It may be the opposite result, but it's the same tactic. As long as the source is available I don't see what the big deal is about building closed devices with free

Re:

[shaitand]

'The license doesn't place similar restrictions on systems built on other closed software (assuming that they are properly decoupled), which is an odd double standard.'

Yes it does. The new 'Installation Info' requirements would require the distributor to provide all the prerequisites including access to the closed software a modified open program would need to operate.

True meaning of :"retroactively"

[feranick]

The current common header for the license says: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

This means that the program you write is also covered by GPL3, as soon as it's out. I guess that is what retroactive means in this contest

Re:

[kripkenstein]

Well explained.

For those too lazy to read the entire current draft, here is the "Microsoft-Novell" paragraph:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with cop

Re:

[hey!]

It is retroactive where copyright holders have granted the right to licensees to apply a later version of the GPL if they so wish. For example, this is a commonly copied piece of boiler plate:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Suppose you have included this boilerplate in your code, then you look at the text

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[F452]

I'm sure back in 1991, the GPLv2 looked like some commercially useless hippie fantasy also. Let's hope in 2020, we're not all enjoying a trusted platform world where we can't effectively modify the GPLv2 underpinning.

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[g2devi]

Yes. You're correct. I still have the early Computer Languages (or was it Dr. Dobbs?) magazine article where they interviewed Stallman about the newly released Free Software Manifesto. The tone of the article portrayed Stallman as being a Don Quixote-like idealists that had little chance of succeeding (after all, everything was proprietary and the moment you make something free like in the 60s someone will come along and make it proprietary again). But he was looked at favourably in the same way that kindly and generous old grandfather that's out of touch with reality is.

Things have definitely changed since that day, but the threat of finding loopholes in the GPL to lock it up again and return us to the 1980s still remains. It remains to be seen of the GPLv3 helps or hinders free software (it has to maintain a fine balance between pragmatism and idealism). But at least the "additional permissions" feature of getting the GPL to be more compatible with other licenses (and reduce license fragmentation) and the Novell-Microsoft patent feature are definite improvements.

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[F452]

Would be interesting to read that. I did a quick search and turned up this byte interview from 1986 (it references publication of the GNU Manifesto in Dr. Dobbs in 1985):

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html [gnu.org]

Which now I'll have to invest some time in reading. :-)

Re:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

[mrchaotica]

some major projects... in no special order examples are WINE, KDE, QT, Java and Firefox, GCC, Gnome (I assume we will have a LGPLv3, too)

GCC is the biggie there; since it's an official GNU project (which means its copyright is owned by the FSF) you know it's going to become GPL v3 as soon as the license is ready.

This could be ok if Novell worked with FSF

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

That question does not exist in isolation.

Maybe there is a way out of this where Novell could repent, make a promise which would nullify the harms it created, and then we could go back to working together.

Fixing the patent situation is necessary, but it is worth asking for suggestions for the most productive way of doing this.

This also answer feranick's question, below. Maybe Novell, or Novell+MS could make a 2nd deal which would make things ok again.

So FSF is looking for some inspiration, a little creativ

Adoption?

[Bruce Perens]

I don't think they have to worry about adoption. They have all of the FSF-owned software going to GPL3, which means that you can't really make a distribution without accepting GPL3. And most likely things like Samba, MySQL, Solaris and other Sun offerings, essentially anything owned by people who don't want the trick that Novell and Microsoft pulled to apply to them. I think that will be a lot of people. In the end, it might even be the kernel team. But that will take 1 to 2 years to play out.

Bruce

Re:

[Dredd13]

They have all of the FSF-owned software going to GPL3, which means that you can't really make a distribution without accepting GPL3.

GPLv2-only code forks to follow. It's the only sane way to react.

Re:

[init100]

The GPLv3 (even more so than the GPLv2) is a cleverly worded attempt to control how users use GPLed software. It's just like DRM, but instead of technical measures they are using purely legal measures.

Could you back that up please?

Re:

[init100]

The GPLv3 is useless without adoption. If they don't make any concessions the GPLv3 will be still-born, and none of the author's agendas will be pushed.

It will at least be adopted by the entire GNU project. If that still counts as being stillborn by your definition, I don't know.

Re:

[ivan256]

Well that depends. How much of the GNU project will be forked at that time, and how many of the developers will follow the GPLv2 branches? Will the adoption rate of the new GPLv3 GNU projects be on par with the adoption rate of HURD?

Re:

[shaitand]

'The GPLv3 (even more so than the GPLv2) is a cleverly worded attempt to control how users use GPLed software.'

The GPLvANYTHING doesn't apply to users. You only need the permissions (and conditions required to get those permissions) of the GPL to modify and/or distribute the software. The GPLv3 is no more or less than an adjustment of the conditions required to get permission to modify and/or distribute software.

Re:

[Tackhead]

> I thought GPL3 had been out for ages at this point. You mean it's still just a draft? Talk about the glacial speed and progress of committees. How long has GPL3 taken so far - and it's still not completed?

Hey, release early, release often.

(Which seems as good a time as any to link to the UPS Debugger Song, better known as "Just one more hack and then I'll put it on the 'net" [kent.ac.uk].)

Re:I thought it was out already?!

[cronius]

This is a not a program you can change if it's broken, this is a license that could possibly have far reaching effect on the nature of free software. The last license was released over 15 years ago, you want to make it right so that v3 can last another 15 years or more. The license is complicated, and quite political, there are no easy answers.

Pluss, they want to take their time so that anyone who wants can voice their oppinion and be heard. Why rush it? Let them take their time and make it right, the first time.

How to Circumvent GPLv3 v1 DRAFT

[raehl]

0. Create a derivative work based on GPL'd software.
1. Sell your derivative work to a distributor as two CDs, one with the compiled code, and one with the source.
2. Distributor discards the CDs with the source and sells the CDs with the binary.
3. PROFIT!

Why this works:

Copyright does not prohibit distribution, only copying. The original party meets their GPL requirement for distributing the source by distributing the source with the binary.

The distributor has no obligation to distribute the source, since th

Re:How to Circumvent GPLv3 v1 DRAFT

[mr_mischief]

What part of a "distributor" undertaking actions to "distribute" copies of a work does not sound like "distribution" to you?

Yes, distribution is in fact one of the rights held only by the copyright holder and those licensed by the copyright holder. In fact, distribution is one of the rights afforded exclusively to the copyright holder and licensees under US copyright law and under the WIPO and WCT treaties. So if you don't follow this license, you can't _distribute_.

Bitlaw page about copyright [bitlaw.com]
US Copyright Office [copyright.gov]
Wikipedia page on copyright [wikipedia.org]
Findlaw's copyright page [findlaw.com]
Wikipedia WIPO page [wikipedia.org]
Dutch copyright law page on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (in English)
Japanese copyright law chapter II (note section 3, subsection 3) [cric.or.jp] (translated to English, obviously)

The entry for the terms in the Table of Contents for the GPL v2 is called "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION".

Here's the fourth paragraph of Preamble of the GPL v2, and notice it doesn't say "if you are the one to make the copies you distribute" anywhere:

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

Notice that it doesn't say you have to have modified it to be bound by the license.

Here's paragraph 5 of the license proper (emphasis mine):

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

The only reason the license repeatedly says "copy and distribute" is that it is granting both rights. It is not because the two are separable and you must agree to the license only if you do both.

Re:

[revlayle]

hmm: "Seumas (6865)"

You're kidding, right?

Re:

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

hmm: "Seumas (6865)"
You're kidding, right?

So? does a low slashdot id equate to a knowledgeable, reasoned poster? I think not.

Anyway, not everything on Slashdot is worth reading by everybody. Each person has his own areas of interest. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy with the GPLv2 and I've decided to stick with it for my personal software releases, so I'm not really following what's happening with GPLv3. As a result, just like the GP, I didn't know it was still a draft either, and I too think it's surpris

Re:I thought it was out already?!

[osu-neko]

So? does a low slashdot id equate to a knowledgeable, reasoned poster? I think not.

Sounds like a good metric to me! ;)

On the original topic: There's no need to rush GPLv3 out the door. There's a perfectly good GPLv2 out there serving the community as we speak, so why rush? Might as well take the time to make sure everything is the best it can be before release. It's not a matter of being "complete" -- the first draft was a complete document. It's a matter of being as good as it can be. If there was nothing like it out there already, that'd be a good reason to release quickly, but since there is, might as well take all the time desired, heck, take all the time in the world, it's not like we need a GPLv3, the GPLv2 is perfectly serviceable.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Not to mention that it's actually important to get this right. If there's a bug in the code you released, you simply fix the bug and everything's fine. If there's a big fat loophole in the license you released, you're screwed.

There is no "retroactive" change

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

There is no "retroactive" change. That comment refers to the last setence of the 2nd last paragraph of section 11. That sentence, which is in square brackets, would make the ban only apply to deals that are made starting from today, so that deal by Novell and MS would not trigger the ban on distributing the software.

So the public are asked: should Novell be banned from distributing GPLv3'd software?

And, imlicitly, I guess, Novell are asked: What assurances can you give us to win our trust so that giving you this exception is justified?

Re:There is no "retroactive" change

[Hijacked Public]

Maybe, to assure everyone, Novell could adopt the slogan "Do No Evil". You people fell pretty hard for that one last time.

Re:

[Hijacked Public]

You imbecile, I've worked for Blackwater, so pretend to school me in proportion all you like while I stare out the window.

For the record, I don't think Google is evil. I don't think Microsoft is. Or even the recording industry. "You people", since you weren't paying attention during Ross Perot's campaign for President, means "everyone not like me".

And while I fully expect Google to further its business interests in any way it can inside the bounds of its attorney's interpretation of the law, many many Slash

Why GPL v3?

[MS-06FZ]

Do we REALLY need a GPL v3?

Probably - v2 was written in a time in which the scenario of the GPL being tested in court was rather more remote. One of the important reasons for v3 is to further lawyer-proof the license.

The question most people seem to be wondering about with v3 is whether it's too ambitious - seeking to prevent abuses of the license in ways some disagree with. Personally, I haven't made up my mind, exactly. I think the underlying premise of the GPL is great - that it is a license that allows free usage in a way that encourages more free usage - and GPL3 is taking that further, by trying to keep people from taking advantage of free software while simultaneously using patents against it, by trying to prevent people from using free software to create devices that restrict users' freedom (the idea being, that if someone wants a big DRM box, they can write the code themselves)

The flip side, of course, is at some point free software has to be something you give. At some point you need to let go, and let people use the stuff. That's why you wrote it, right? So people would use it. This is the sticking point for me - I like what GPLv3 is trying to accomplish - I even want to support what it's trying to accomplish - but sometimes, if you want your gift of software to be really useful, you need to stop attaching quite so many strings to it.

But all that aside, the real problem with the GPL v3 is that new clause that RMS will personally strangle a kitten every time someone uses GPLv3 code in a DRM box. We've got to see about getting that clause removed.

Re:

[glwtta]

but sometimes, if you want your gift of software to be really useful, you need to stop attaching quite so many strings to it.

Exactly, and that's what other licenses are for. The GPL is definitely positioned as the Free as in "Stays Free" license; less restrictive licenses are necessary for many situations, but that doesn't mean that something as strong as the GPL isn't needed (especially for a lot of end-user software).

Isn't that whole mantra of Free software: choice?

Re:

[MS-06FZ]

but sometimes, if you want your gift of software to be really useful, you need to stop attaching quite so many strings to it.

Exactly, and that's what other licenses are for. The GPL is definitely positioned as the Free as in "Stays Free" license; less restrictive licenses are necessary for many situations, but that doesn't mean that something as strong as the GPL isn't needed (especially for a lot of end-user software).

Well, sure - I'm not questioning the value of the GPLv3, just thinking out loud about how I personally feel about some of its restrictions, and how I feel about the licenses I put on my contributions to free software. But I also question how far the GPL should go in pursuit of "free and stays free" - as I said, I think at some point you have to let it go. I appreciate their effort but the GPL also has to be a license people will be comfortable using. I'm sure the two interests will balance out in the en

Re:

[Jooly Rodney]

You keep saying "you have to let it go," but you haven't clearly put forth what you think that means. I'd like to see you give an example of a provision in GPLv3 the efforts of which to make sure the software is "free and stays free" somehow subverts that intent or harms the user. If someone actually wants to make their software stay free, how would the GPLv3 stand in opposition?

Re:So I no longer have to give up my private keys?

[Bruce Perens]

You never had to give up your keys. That's just FUD. I've written a longer explanation here [technocrat.net].

Bruce

Oops, wrong URL.

[Bruce Perens]

Oh darn, sorry wrong URL. Try here [technocrat.net]

Re:

[Bruce Perens]

You never appeared to actually demonstrate that there was no clause requiring you to give up your keys, and given that Linus appeared to believe there was, I'm taking Linus's word over yours.

Well, you never demonstrated that you aren't beating your wife, and I say you are! Now the burden on you is to prove that you're not. What, you're not married? Prove that, too! I say you're beating the poor woman! :-)

You have the new license draft. Do you see any thing that says you have to give up keys? Show me the

Re:

[shaitand]

'Secondly, does any know if this removes the provision that I have to give up my private encryption keys if I use GPLv3 software?'

If by 'my private encryption keys' you mean encyption keys used to restrict the software that can be run on an operating system or embedded device then I hope not. As far as I know those are the only keys that any draft of the GPLv3 ever required disclosed.