Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released 242

Posted by Zonk from the revisions-are-fun dept.
thppft! writes "The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License. Along with the text for the licenses , the GPLv3 website also includes an introduction by Eben Moglen along with markup changes to the rationale and the GPL itself."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released More

GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

Comments Filter:

  • Some more info (Score:5, Informative)

    by H4x0r Jim Duggan ( 757476 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @05:37PM (#15794862) Homepage Journal

    After my submission was rejected, I figured another submission based on this story was in the queue, so I put the below links together:

    Four transcripts which include the post-talk Q&A sessions from presentations by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen:

    And two very useful docs:

  • Dear Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27, 2006 @05:44PM (#15794923)
    In the future, please warn when linking to audio files.

  • v3, eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by mobby_6kl ( 668092 )
    What, did they fix all the bugs in the previous version already?
  • One of the things that was discussed regarding the GPL v3 was adding a provision that made web services considered distribution that would require eleasing the source as per the GPL (as opposed to applications which are used internally but not distributed, where there is no source code distribution requirement). If they do choose to include such a provision, it could stifle the development of new and innovative web applications as the financial incentive for development would be removed.

    Microsoft is alread

    • Re:What Constitutes Distribution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:09PM (#15795067)
      People put code out under the GPL because they want changes to be redistributed. The fact that you could use the code as a webservice was never intended as a feature of the GPL, it was a loophole. It allowed a way for people to redistribute GPLed code as a service without releasing changes. If this change makes it into GPL3 it will be a good thing. IMO, its one of the two most important changes needed in the GPL (the other being patents).

      Your option, if you don't like this, is not to use GPLv3 code in your webservice, just like everyone else using GPLed code. You no onger get to have your cake and eat it too.
      • "People put code out under the GPL because they want changes to be redistributed. The fact that you could use the code as a webservice was never intended as a feature of the GPL, it was a loophole. It allowed a way for people to redistribute GPLed code as a service without releasing changes. If this change makes it into GPL3 it will be a good thing. IMO, its one of the two most important changes needed in the GPL (the other being patents)." But does GPLv3 actually do anything about this? I juat gave it a c
      • IANAL....

        First, I am all for sharing code, even where not obligate by law. There are sound business reasons for sharing a great deal in that it reduces maintenance overhead and helps efficiency.

        However, you have a number of problems with defining distribution in such a way as to include web services.

        The first is that I am not convinced that either linking or dependency necessarily implies derivation. For example, if I write code which *can* compile either against OpenSSL or GnuTLS, I am either allowed to
        • However, you have a number of problems with defining distribution in such a way as to include web services.

          The biggest problem being that copyright law already has a definition of distribution. Running the software remotely does not count. Applets are distributed, servlets are not.
        • The FSF's reasoning seems to be that copyright law prohibits you from *modifying* a work without permission (regardless of whether you distribute it or not), not that EULAs are valid or that offering a Web service counts as distribution. So, the Web services clause would only apply to you if you changed a program, not if you simply used it to run a Web server.

          There's a very big loophole here, because modifying isn't as "viral" as copying: A Web company could just outsource GPL programming to someone else, s
    • GPL v2 is already anti-patent. If, under the GPLv2, you release code which implements a patented algorithm, you have to allow others to do the same, thus making your patent royalty-free. If you don't own the patent, you can't release the code anyway. The GPLv3 clarifies a lot of stuff already covered by GPLv2.
      • No, not exactly. That requirement ONLY kicks in if there is a court order restricting distribution, or if the patent holder asserts their rights against the project. The simple existence of the patent doesn't mean you can't distribute the code. Section 7 of the GPL makes clear that it only kicks in "if conditions are imposed on you".
        • It must be a great comfort to know that the new GPL allows you to distribute code that violates patents thus enabling you to be sued.

          • Re:free as in "free to shoot yourself in the foot" (Score:4, Insightful)

            by rm69990 ( 885744 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @08:00PM (#15795673)
            Ummm, the old GPL allowed you to as well. In-fact, I was talking about the GPL v2, and it was the GPL v2 that I had open in-front of me when I wrote that comment. The GPL v3 increases the restrictions, but against the patent holding companies. Could you please actually read it (both 2 and 3)?

            Commercial software companies are unable to filter every single patent in the world to make sure they are not infringing any of them, what makes you think a 2 developer team would be able to? For the GPL to require anyone to do so would be impractical...hell, to require Microsoft to do so would be impractical. The patent system is broken, and it is impossible to do what you think the GPL should require developers to do. The FSF found a balance, only requiring a ceasing of distribution once the patent holder requires it.

            Do you honestly think every distributor of software, both proprietary and open source, knows every single patent in the world and whether or not they infringe it? If you do, you are incredibly naive.
            • The context was not clear. The last statement made by the poster you were responding to was making a claim about version 3, so without you quoting a different part of his post it was reasonable to assume you were referring to 3 as well.

              I agree that the patent system is broken. I also think it's dumb for the GPL (any version) to encourage any behavior other than avoiding the incorporation of any patented algorithm in GPL'd code whether the patent is held by the code writer or anyone else and without regard

    • Re:What Constitutes Distribution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) * on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:17PM (#15795126)
      TNSTAAFL?

      I may be an OSSer, but I have nothing against commercial code, per se. How about this?: choose the set of rules you wish to operate under. If you want to keep the code closed to make money, pay money for your code base. If you wish to use GPLed code, pay for it with GPLed code. And there's always BSD.

      The GPL does not exist to promote the development of new and innovate web applications. It exists to promote the development of new and innovate code available to The People. Nor is the GPL the source of Microsoft's FUD. It is not its duty to ammeliorate it, but to oppose it.

      Personally I don't really care whether you agree with it or not, but that is what the damned license is for.

      KFG

      • If I get it, the new version puts more restrictions on combining proprietary and open source code libraries. Is this not correct? If it is, how would this affect applications/companies like MySQL? Don't they have two versions (if I am not mistaken), a GPL version and a commercial version. They are in business to make money. Will this prevent them from releasing their RDBMS for free under the GPL (or vice versa, prevent them from releasing a closed source version)? Even if MySQL might not work this way

        • how would this affect applications/companies like MySQL? Don't they have two versions (if I am not mistaken), a GPL version and a commercial version.

          MySQL is the copyright holder, that is what gives them the right to dual license under the GPLv2 and a commercial license, and nothing in GPLv3 can take away their rights as the copyright holder to license their work as they wish.

        • MySQL owns the code they dual license. They're free to under it under whatever terms they like. Same for Trolltech and many others. If they decide to go to GPLv3 that won't affect their ability to offer the same code under a different license at all. In fact, I suspect they'll be in a hurry to switch to v3, as to whatever degree it's more restrictive of commercial use (I don't think it is at all, but that seems to be the impression people are getting, and in business perception is often more important than
          • The one really scary clause in v3 seems to be the one that everyone overlooks. The license termination clause looks rather toothless in comparison to GPL2, and, outside of the guy that runs the GPL violations web site, no one seems to be paying much attention to that.

            The draft 2 clarification seems to make it better. The license says that the copyright holder has 60 days from the date of last violation to put the violator on notice. In cases of accidental violation, this means that if you fix the violation,
            • So, I take your software, modify it a little to run on my embedded hardware appliance, sell the appliance with no mention of your software or the GPL. I sell it for 6 months, then phase in the new model, which is similar but not the same. Five months into the production of the first one, you, the author of the GPL code I'm misusing, get a tip about it. You have to go BUY one my appliances, which can be a significant outlay of money, then investigate it carefully, a significant outlay of your valuable time,

      • Re:What Constitutes Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday July 27, 2006 @07:47PM (#15795610) Homepage Journal
        I may be an OSSer, but I have nothing against commercial code, per se. How about this?: choose the set of rules you wish to operate under. If you want to keep the code closed to make money, pay money for your code base. If you wish to use GPLed code, pay for it with GPLed code.

        I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm not convinced that transmitting the output of, say, phpBB2 is the same as distributing the source of phpBB2. If I install it and modify a page, should I be obligated to make my patch available to anyone who views that page? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way, but a real issue that the GPLv3 introduces.

        The same could be said of any other GPLv3ed software that uses some kind of templating system to generate output. Word processors, code generators, database frontends, drawing programs: those all incorporate parts of themselves into their end products. Should graphics drawn with The GIMP be GPL because they contain circles made by The GIMP's copyrighted code? If not, then what's the fundamental difference between The GIMP and phpBB that should restrict the output of one and not the other?

        I apologize if this comes off like a troll, but I'm really curious. I don't understand this viewpoint but would be interested in seeing it logically supported.

        • Well, I'm not a big fan of this clause and don't plan to use GPLv3 for my web app, but there is a difference in your two cases.

          In the phpBB2 case you are running the code explicitly for the user to provide input from his output. In the GIMP case, you are just distributing output from the program from your own inputs.

          If you came along and said "I have a service where for $20 (or free) I'll take your photograph and pass it though my handy, closed-source filter that I added onto the Gimp and then give you the

          • If you came along and said "I have a service where for $20 (or free) I'll take your photograph and pass it though my handy, closed-source filter that I added onto the Gimp and then give you the output" THAT would be analogous to the phpBB2 case.

            No, it wouldn't.

            What would be analogous would be to say "I have a service where for $20 (or free) I'll take your photograph and pass it though my handy filter I wrote (but I don't distribute) and added to the Gimp and then give you the output."

            If I say "I will sell y
    • The provision in the first draft was that if a project implemented a feature that had a command to download the source code, the web service provider had to keep this in-tact, otherwise, there was no requirement. In other words, it is completely up to the OSS project devs whether this requirement is present or not. Which is reasonable.
      • I don't understand how the user of the software (in this case, the webmaster) is bound by that requirement. The GPL is not an EULA, as I understand it. I don't have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software, only to distribute it.

        • Re:Applicable? (Score:4, Informative)

          by rm69990 ( 885744 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:32PM (#15795208)
          Yes, you're right that copyright law doesn't cover use. However, you DO have to have a license to modify the code as well, irregardless of whether you distribute it. As soon as the webmaster modifies the code for use in his web app, he must comply with the GPL. By removing that code that implements this feature, he is modifying the code outside of the terms of the GPL, and thus in violation.

          Remember, copyright law places limitations not only on distribution, but also on modification and creation of derivitive works, even if there is no distribution of those modified works. So that is how this clause works. If you made a derivitive of Windows for internal use without Microsoft's permission, you would be infringing their copyright, unless you had a license to do so.

          • Interesting. I can see how that makes sense, which is a lot better off than I was a minute ago. Thanks!

            But don't we generally think that application of copyright law is bad / stupid / evil? Is the FSF now going to assert that I can't make FLACs of my CDs, or that I can't edit curse words out of my movies?

        • Controlling derivative works is a matter of copyright law. Absent such permission, modification of the source is prohibited. IANAL though.... Note that the current draft allows people to add this requirment, which I oppose.

      • The provision in the first draft was that if a project implemented a feature that had a command to download the source code, the web service provider had to keep this in-tact, otherwise, there was no requirement.

        While this may be reasonable in certain situations, there are cases where no distribution is involved and therefore no further copying ever takes place (the best example of this being a set of server-side scripts). In such cases the requirement to provide the source code through a special command is

        • So? Redistribution isn't the only action requiring a license under copyright law. Creation of derivative works (ie. a webmaster removing the code implementing said feature), even with no distribution, requires a license to do so, and the derivative work must comply with the license. Hence how this clause works. It isn't contingent upon public use, it is contingent upon modification of the original work, an action that has ALWAYS been covered by the GPL.
          • Unless the source code is embedded in the executable itself, removing the source code from your servers does not constitute modification of the software. For that reason, such a feature is clearly contingent upon use rather than modification or redistribution.
          • Furthermore...

            It isn't contingent upon public use, it is contingent upon modification of the original work, an action that has ALWAYS been covered by the GPL.

            Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications when from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
            • Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications isolated from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
        • Does this requirement still exist in the current draft of the GPL v3?

          Yes. I didn't see it at first (disregard my comments stating otherwise).

          This draft allows additional terms in ennumerated categories including:

          "4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network session;"

          Note that this covers modified versions

    • Re:What Constitutes Distribution (Score:5, Informative)

      by lordcorusa ( 591938 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:28PM (#15795187)
      One of the things that was discussed regarding the GPL v3 was adding a provision that made web services considered distribution that would require eleasing [sic] the source as per the GPL...

      The short story is that this definition of distribution (distribution is now called "conveying" in license language) has been rejected by the FSF and does not appear by default in this draft of GPL3.

      The longer story: Some web services projects do want to include a link to allow users to download source, and they do want to limit server administrators from removing this capability. To appease this group, the FSF has added an optional license provision that forbids removal of such a feature. I repeat, this is an optional license feature that takes effect if and only if a given project explicitly activates it.

      I suspect that you are right and that most web service providers will not want to use up resources with users downloading web service source. So, I suspect that the market will cause any such projects to diminish in popularity. The important thing to note is that the FSF is not forcing this notion of distribution on any project using the GPLv3.

      On a related note, the GPLv3 drafts Section 7b contains a list of optional license restrictions (including the above mentioned restriction) that are permissible. All of these restrictions are things that the FSF does not believe are necessary to maintain a Free program, but that the FSF acknowledges won't seriously harm user freedom if individual projects choose to activate them. Mostly, this list is provided to improve the GPLv3's compatibility with other Free Software licenses which contain equivalent restrictions but are incompatible with GPLv2. This attempt at license compatibility with other Free Software licenses is a big improvement for the GPL.

      • On a related note, the GPLv3 drafts Section 7b contains a list of optional license restrictions (including the above mentioned restriction) that are permissible. All of these restrictions are things that the FSF does not believe are necessary to maintain a Free program, but that the FSF acknowledges won't seriously harm user freedom if individual projects choose to activate them.

        Oh, joy. Now, when trying to use multiple open source projects, we can't even assume that two GPLv3 projects have compatible lic

        • Re:What Constitutes Distribution (Score:4, Informative)

          by lordcorusa ( 591938 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @08:45PM (#15795838)
          Oh, joy. Now, when trying to use multiple open source projects, we can't even assume that two GPLv3 projects have compatible licenses. "libAardvark is GPLv3 with restrictions 4, 7, and 19, and gLlamaBoy is GPLv3 with restrictions 1, 8, and 21-36. We'll have to rewrite one of them."

          Remember, any GPLvX code can automatically be linked to any other GPLvX code (although not necessarily to GPLvX-1 code). The allowable optional restrictions of section 7b do not impose contradictory burdens (that is, option 2 does not contradict option 3, etc) nor do they really add significant burdens to the vanilla GPLv3 (with the exception of 7.b.4 which is the web services option and the one everyone is still up in arms about). They are just minor differences in effect and the purpose of Section 7 is to allow modules with such minor licensing differences to be linked.

          In fact, not only is the purpose of this section to allow you to link code under all permutations of the GPLv3, it also allows you to link GPLv3 code to various Free Software licenses that were not previously linkable due to minor wording differences or patent retaliation clauses. In fact, the controversial 7.b.4 section was to allow linking with the Affero Free Public License. The big debate should not just be whether 7.b.4 is okay, but also whether the Affero Free Public License is really a Free license.

          • Remember, any GPLvX code can automatically be linked to any other GPLvX code (although not necessarily to GPLvX-1 code).

            OK, so linking is explicitly covered. What about distribution, though? If I want to combine project Foo with project Bar to make "Super FooBar", do I have to release the result with the union of the set of their extra clauses? If so, it seems imminently likely that every piece of GPLv3ed software will eventually come to carry every extra restriction available due to its integration wi

      • It may be optional, but it shouldn't even be optional. It shouldn't be there. The problem with it is that there is no answer to this question:

        At what point does a forked version of a piece of code cease to be the original program?

        Assume, for a moment, that PHPBB includes such a feature and includes that restriction. What happens when I take it and add functionality? They can no longer download the source that is running. The option to download the source isn't going to give customers what's runni

        • As I understand it, if you download PHPBB and make changes to it, and PHPBB has a "download this code" link, then you have to point it to a version that contains your changes. Doing otherwise would be like me downloading, say, Linux and making a bunch of changes to the kernel, then distributing my kernel with the original source (sans my changes).
          Now, if you included part of PHPBBs code in your own program unmodified, then do you have to have a link to that part of the PHPBB code, or your code, or both?
    • If they do choose to include such a provision, it could stifle the development of new and innovative web applications as the financial incentive for development would be removed.

      Yse, and that pesky GPL is keeping me from putting proprietary magic into the kernel, which could stifle the development of new and innovative [kernel features] as the financial incentive for development would be removed.

      Basicly, you can make the exact same argument for the current GPL and come to the conclusion that you should use

    • adding a provision that made web services considered distribution

      The GPL depends on copyright to have any teeth whatsoever. It's a document that modifies the statutorily-created exclusive rights (17 USC 106). I've done a fair amount of research and briefing on what constitutes distribution in an online context (most notably, New York Times v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fl. 1993), Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc., 59 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 19

    • If GPL continues to allow companies to incorporate GPL code into web apps that are then "released" to the public for public use without releasing the web app code, then the GPL will gradually become less and less relevant. The reason being that as time goes on, more and more classes of apps will shift from binary desktop apps to web apps (many of you raved over Google's web spreadsheet, for example), and such web apps are not covered under the GPL. So imagine a future where web apps are the norm; if such

  • What are the changes? (Score:4, Informative)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:10PM (#15795075) Journal
    Looking through the new draft, they've made major improvements to the wording of things, which is good because in the first version the prose was thicker than molasses. Specifically, the part about releasing the keys necessary to run the source (the TIVO clause) is much clearer and easier to understand.
    The other changes seem to be patching holes in the logic that might have allowed someone to get around the GPL.

  • Biggest Change (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stalyn ( 662 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:15PM (#15795109) Homepage Journal
    The word DRM and the phrase Digital Restrictions Mangement no longer appear in the document. Instead they define a clause called "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures" which is basically the new anti-DRM clause.

    • Re:Biggest Change (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bcmm ( 768152 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:45PM (#15795286)
      IMHO this is a very good move. It's a sad thing, but no one knows or cares what DRM is. However, everyone cares if his/her computer won't do what he or she wants. This makes it much easier for a normal person to understand things. Including a plain language explanation is an important strength of this license.

      • Agreed!

        Besides the fact that dubbing DRM with the propogandistic term "digital restrictions management" doesn't look particularly professional, it seems a bit inviting for people to weasal out of the conditions. "No, we don't use `digital restrictions management' anywhere in this code; only `digital rights management.'"

        Similarly, by not referring to DRM by its (current) name, but rather by what it does, I think it helps to future-proof the new GPL. Suppose they kept the explicit term DRM in the language

    • Besides the change in terminology, what is the actual policy? Is GPL going to forbid any code that implements DRM functionality? If so, won't it be impossible to make a GPL app that plays BluRay and HD-DVD discs, since these discs use AACS DRM? Same goes for handling other DRM media?
      • OK. I read at http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9516231028.html [linux-watch.com] that

        Among the changes in this new draft are that the license only directly restricts DRM (digital rights management) in the special case in which it is used to prevent people from sharing or modifying GPLv3-covered software. According to the FSF, the clarified DRM section preserves the spirit of the original GPL, which forbids adding additional restrictions to free software. In short, GPLv3 doesn't prohibit the implementation of DRM features,

  • What about this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wannabe Code Monkey ( 638617 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @06:36PM (#15795233)

    So I haven't read through the entire draft just yet, but this section jumped out at me:

    The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.) (emphasis mine).

    Should it really be fair to restrict some online service to have to treat all clients the same way just because one version was derived from another? Lets say I modify the source code of some browser that is covered by GPLv3. My version has some quirks that make it interpret css differently from the first browser. Would it then be illegal for a website to serve up different css based on my user agent string?

    • It'd be illegal to force a different UA string in the first place.

      • It'd be illegal to force a different UA string in the first place.

        I was thinking about that. But what if the name of the original browser is trademarked and derivative works are required to call themselves something different, wouldn't that require you to use a different UA string? And what's the point of a UA string if you're not allowed to change it for different versions of a browser. Would it be illegal to allow end users to change the UA string? Are they violating the GPL by doing so?

    • The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to
      • I think, as I have studied the license more closely, that what I want to do will be OK. Maybe it is a loophole though.

        Suppose I run, say, Apache web server on my Trusted Computer. I want to prove that it is an unhacked version for some reason. Or maybe it's a hacked version and I want to prove exactly what I did. So I publish the source code, and I use the crypto key embedded in the TPM chip to prove this is what I am running.

        I think it's OK, because it falls under clause 4 or clause 5 of the GPL. These cov

    • Re:What about this... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Elladan ( 17598 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @07:22PM (#15795494)
      The idea of this requirement is to stop the client from having to differentiate itself to the server. So in this case, the client could (at your - the user's - option) send the same user agent string, or not. It's up to you.

      The point is to prevent people from putting out GPL systems that implement DRM client-executable authentication. An example would be if the client was required to transmit a SHA1 hash of its executable image to the server, and the server then decided whether to give you the page or not based on that.

      For such a system to pass the GPLv3 requirements, then the correct SHA1 hash for the version the server wants to talk to has to be included along with the source code, and the source code, when you build it, has to send that hash instead of a real hash. In other words, it has to keep working when you build your own copy, even if you change it.

      This requirement basically forbids that sort of thing entirely. You can give a hash, and the server can respond to that hash, but it can't be a secret hash. This is the sort of thing DRM systems sometimes do to make sure you can't access your data. For example, games like WoW and EQ do things like this to prevent you from using a GPLed game client.

    • Re:What about this... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )

      Should it really be fair to restrict some online service to have to treat all clients the same way just because one version was derived from another?

      Should it really be fair to limit the definition of "linking" to its use in the 1980's long before the invention of SOAP, REST, CORBA, DCOM and other network protocols (OK RPC was around back then, but limited to very simple APIs). Should it really be fair that someone can circumvent the GPL by wrapping their "internal" modified code as a webservice and exp

      • Screw fairness. Anyone who managed to graduate from kindergarten knows that life isn't fair. Mature people learn to deal with it and move on. Besides, it's called the "Free Software Foundation", not the "Fair Software Foundation."
    • > Should it really be fair to restrict some online service to have to treat all clients the same way just because one version was derived from another? Lets say I modify the source code of some browser that is covered by GPLv3. My version has some quirks that make it interpret css differently from the first browser. Would it then be illegal for a website to serve up different css based on my user agent string?

      No. In the situation you describe, the derived work could fake its user-agent string, and in fa
    • If your user agent is unchanged, it can not distinguish between a modified and non-modified client. Anything the application sends or calculates itself does not matter to this clause. This clause is specificly designed for one thing only, and it is to make remote attestation incompatible with the GPLv3. Since the remote attestation keys can't be forged (they're signed up the whole trusted computing chain, and not under the application's own control) it's impossible to make a modified version that would pres
    • Sounds a bit stupid to me - it basically prevents forking of anything that communicates online. You're not allowed to change the new version in such a way that a copy of the original could tell the difference.
    • Holy crap! What were Eben and Richard smoking when they came up with that one! Don't they realize this fails their own definition of Free Software? It's basically saying "once a DVD player, always a DVD player." A sufficiently pedantic lawyer could argue that it does not allow you to modify software beyond its specifications.

      The FSF is trying to be too clever for their own good. If the FSF had written the US Bill of RIghts it would have ended up being a twenty page document. Sometimes I seriously wonder if

  • Torvalds unimpressed (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux Watch has published some comments from Linus [linux-watch.com].

    • Re:Torvalds unimpressed (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Linux Watch has published some comments from Linus.
      Who cares? He has been wrong before on those issues (bitkeeper).
    • Linus just dismissed it out of hand saying nothing has changed. A great deal has changed since the first draft, including two key points that have been altered largely to appease him.

      I owe a great deal of thanks to Linus for his contributions to the world. But he can sure be a stubborn ass from time to time.
  • The irony is that the GPL is making restrictions in order to fight them.
  • The "GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Rationale" says "See Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" and "See Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management". Are these opinions available? I cannot find them by searching gplv3.fsf.org, fsf.org, or google.

  • Treacherous (Score:5, Funny)

    by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @08:59PM (#15795888)
    *2 DRM becomes nastier when based on Treacherous Computing and other changes
    in computer hardware which deny users the possibility of running modified or alternate
    programs.

    It looks like they had RMS personally writing the footnotes for this one.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close