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."

Heads up their asses...

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

Apparently completely neglecting the fact that they have no legal basis on which to do that...

Somebody needs to remind Richard Stallman that Free stands for Freedom. He seems to have forgotten.

"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

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:"retroactively" was just a bad choice of word

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

'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

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?

Adoption?

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

3rd-party Analysis?

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.

Can they do that?

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:Can they do that?

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:Can they do that?

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.

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:Can they do that?

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:Can they do that?

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

My question is this...

Do we REALLY need a GPL v3?

Why GPL v3?

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.

Retroactively?

"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?

Sadly...

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...

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. ;-)

Re:Sadly...

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.

Good for lawyers

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!

What happened to web apps?

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?

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:What happened to web apps?

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?

Reaction to GPLv3

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

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

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.

Freedom Means People Do Things You Don't Like

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.

Quick summary of the changes

1. This license can be applied except in circumstances where:

a. Your company's name starts with 'N' and/or ends in 'll' (e.g. Novell).

b. Your company is a gross misspelling of the word "novel" (e.g. Novell).

c. Your company's logo is a single letter (e.g. a red 'N').

d. An agent of your company has been within 20 feet of anyone working for a company within a 10 mile radius of Seattle, WA (e.g. Redmond).

e. Half of your employees do not remember the name of your current CEO.

You may apply for a special exemption specifically from Richard Stallman of the FSF, but only if he's wearing a disk platter on his head at the time of the application.

2. If you own a patent, deal with patents, or can even spell the word patent, you may not use this license at all, in fact you are not to read it... stop reading here.... (thanks).

3. If you use cryptography, encryption or anything else related to digital rights management, you cannot use the terms of this license unless you give us the keys for your access.

4. XEmacs sucks. It just does. They used my code without permission. They're evil. Don't use it.
Note: #4 may be the most controversial part of GPLv3.

Still no Apache/GPL compatibility

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...

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

K I S S

One of the big reason's I think the GPL v. 2 was such a good license is that it was a simple license with a simple objective. The problem I see with the new license is that it is losing it's KISS (keep it simple stupid) roots to go after issues that piss off free software advocates. Can people abuse the GPL's spirit but maintain the letter of the law? Yes but I think of that as a feature and not an issue (as advocates of free speech nicely put "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it.") . Why- because restrictions in licenses often have unintended consequences. One of those consequences is having a license that gets more convoluted as time goes by. If every time somebody finds a loop hole in how you want your software license used, you need to change your license, the closer the language of your license becomes "you can use our software until we don't like you".

Right now, the gpl is trying to define things like "intended for home use" and "only use patents for defensive purposes and "modify ... still play media". One of the really nice things about GPL v. 2 is the lack of imbiguety of the language and definitions.

What's the big deal, anyway?

I'm puzzled by the extent of the anti-GPLv3 reactions. It really isn't all that different from GPLv2.

The patent provisions of v3 are more explicit than those of v2, but they amount to the same thing: by distributing GPLed work, you grant downstream permission to use patents that are necessary to what you distributed. Earlier drafts were either overreaching or less clear, but I don't see much of a practical difference from v2 now.

The anti-Tivoization clauses are new, but they're pretty simple. You can't distribute a consumer device with GPLv3 software that cannot effectively be changed (unless it's in a ROM or something). Earlier drafts would cause problems with things like medical devices, that need certified and hence unchangeable software, but that's been explicitly removed in this draft.

The web apps clauses are gone from this draft, as far as I can tell. This may or may not be a good thing, but it's another lack of change between GPLv2 and GPLv3.

There's a large number of detail changes, but some of these are more permissive. The requirements for distributing source code are somewhat relaxed over the GPLv2 requirements. Nor do I see that it's harder to read GPLv3 (this draft, anyway; the last one was rather opaque).

So, for all of you that thing GPLv3 is wrong-headed, what do you object to? There's too many of you to make me think that it's all the anti-Tivoization clauses. I'm not interested in reasons that apply equally to GPLv2, or personal animosity towards Stallman and the FSF. I'm asking what's wrong with the current draft of GPLv3 that would make you want to continue to use GPLv2.

Concerns for the GPLv3

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.

Maybe GPL v3 is not enough

This isn't going to be very helpful, but on a recent Slashdot discussion I saw a reader commenting on GPL v3 not beeing enough to proect free software. I do not remember the discussion, nor the user. It worried me for a while, but then I moved on.

Ultimately, it's all the same.

The purpose of GPL3 is the same as that of earlier versions: to "get at" folks that Richard Stallman and the FSF do not like. Much of it is spiteful and is directed specifically against people who have been "too successful" -- that is, programmers who have been able to make money by writing and selling software. (Heaven forbid that anyone should be able to be successful in that way.) Alas, it will not affect Microsoft, which pretty much everyone admits will not be harmed by the GPL. It'll only affect little guys like us who otherwise might have a chance. It's ironic, but the FSF has effectively become an ally of Microsoft by going after its nascent competition. Sad.

impact on Novell in short:

The impact on Novell, in short: no change from GPLv2.

Novell haters lose.

Cry Babies

I have a hard time understanding all the crying over a few additional clauses intended to stop
the breaking of the spirit of the GPL. Actually I am fairly sure that most of the crying is by those who do not even develop software or those who wish to breach the intent of the license, such as certain corporate interests.

You see it works like this, I "myself, me, numero uno etc" the developer is the only one that matters
in this whole deal. If I choose to write software and place it under the GPL2,GPL3,BSD license etc then so be it. If I don't like the way some corporate interest is trying to circumvent the spirit of the license then by all means I will license under GPL3 in a heartbeat.

What does this mean to me?

I have a question. So say I whip up some new fangled Linux distro that I sell support contracts to small businesses. Now say I also whip up a packaging system that happens to infringe on a patent of some small company by the name of PackageSoft. So to ensure my customers and I don't get sued, I license that patent from PackageSoft while I whip up a new packaging system. From my understanding, by doing that I'm immediately banned for life from ever distributing any gpl3 code ever again. Am I understanding that correctly?

Re:fdp

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

Re:I thought it was out already?!

> 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].)

There is no "retroactive" change

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

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

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

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.

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

Re:I thought it was out already?!

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.

Re:How to Circumvent GPLv3 v1 DRAFT

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:I thought it was out already?!

hmm: "Seumas (6865)"

You're kidding, right?

Re:I thought it was out already?!

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

'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.

Re:This is not good for FOSS

Anonymous coward indeed. And what would you have the community do? Sit on its hands and hope extra hard that Msft doesn't become emboldened with its patent play?

Shouldn't that be...

Long Answer: Nooooooooooo!
</Anakin>

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

to limit the freedom of others

Yes if you mean their freedom to limit your freedom, then "all that legalese" has indeed been added to stop them exercising that "freedom". You are a troll (and a dumb one at that).

Re:To everyone criticizing the need for the GPL3:

Will you all be sending in your $699 cheques to MicroSCOft soon?

No, none of us will. Any threats Ballmer makes along these lines constitute nothing more than baseless sabre rattling...and your own threat here is equally baseless fearmongering.

The FSF talks about freedom, and yet you're here issuing fear-based threats about what will happen to us if we don't accept a repressive license which has already been rejected by the kernel developers and others.

I can really see the freedom there. Go and crawl back under your rock...I just wish to God that Stallman would do the same.

Re:I thought it was out already?!

Work on the GPL is very hard. It's not as if the Gnu debugger even supports English properly, so all work must be done in assembler. Whereas on something trivial like an OS kernel, you can debug in a high level language.