Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jul 27, 2006 04:34 PM
from the revisions-are-fun dept.
GNU is Not Unix Linux
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."

Related Stories

[+] Linus Speaks Out On GPLv3 615 comments
Slagged writes to mention the word that Linus Torvalds isn't a fan of the new GPL draft. News.com has the story, and someone purporting to be Linus is causing a ruckus in the Groklaw thread on the subject. From the News.com article: "Say I'm a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact, most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."
[+] Developers: Linux Kernel Developers' Position on GPLv3 395 comments
diegocgteleline.es writes "A group of 29 Linux kernel developers have recently come together and produced a position statement on GPLv3 (PDF, txt) explaining why, essentially, they don't like it. 'The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current license proposal ... we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanization of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely'. They've also run a GPLv3 poll."
Offsite: C|Net Coverage
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • Some more info (Score:5, Informative)

    by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Thursday July 27 2006, @04:37PM (#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, @04:44PM (#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?

    • Re:v3, eh? (Score:2, Funny)

      by P0ldy (848358)
      No, but they're expecting to take care of that with a service pack to v3.
  • 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,

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

      by AuMatar (183847) on Thursday July 27 2006, @05:09PM (#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.
      [ Parent ]
        • So, if I used a GPLed programming language to make my website, must I offer the full source to that language? What if I use GPLed software to generate a movie, then put it on the web? Now, what if I use GPLed software to generate a random file, then put it on the web? What if that file is html? Where's the line?

          Mmmmmm!!! Delicious FUD cakes! Straight from Bullshit Lane Bakeries.

          The GPL has never, will never, and can never cover the generated output of any GPL'ed program. This can only occur in the mind of a poor deluded fool, such as yourself. The GPL covers only the source code, and binaries generated from the source code. Not, I repeat, not binaries generated from the binaries, or anything else they might produce.

          As for a "GPL'ed programming language", I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean. Languages exist independantly of the programs that interpret them, in theory at least. Language symantics cannot be copyrighted anymore than mathematical relationships can.
          [ Parent ]
          • Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be in this draft....

            If you have a web service and offer the output code to the public, there are those who want you to offer the source if you use GPL'd components. No taking GPL'd components and creating something inhouse
        • It will only alienate those companies that probably shouldn't be using GPLed code to begin with. The point of OSS is to build up a code base of "public" code that anybody can use, and that companies can pay for contractors to make minor improvements if nee
    • 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. Th
      • 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 o

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

            by rm69990 (885744) on Thursday July 27 2006, @07:00PM (#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.
            [ Parent ]

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

      by kfg (145172) * on Thursday July 27 2006, @05:17PM (#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
      [ Parent ]

      • 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 G

        • 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 fa
          • 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 attent

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

        by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday July 27 2006, @06:47PM (#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.

        [ Parent ]
    • 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

      • Applicable? (Score:2)

        by XanC (644172)
        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, @05:32PM (#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.
          [ Parent ]

          • 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 C

            • The GPL has relied upon copyright law since its inception (or has applied it). If it didn't, you wouldn't have to abide by it.
            • Well durrr, if there was no modification then the command allowing the download of source code would still be present in the program, sherlock. By removing this command, there IS modification by that very act, and thus the GPL applies....what is so difficu

          • and when redistributing includes making the web service available to others

            But it doesn't include that; you're not redistributing any code. The earlier sibling post (to yours) describes what they must be thinking with this clause.

          • No, it's when they modify the GPL'd code, not when they redistribute, that causes them to have to comply with that section of the GPL.

      • 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 situ
        • 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 mu

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

      by lordcorusa (591938) on Thursday July 27 2006, @05:28PM (#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.
      [ Parent ]

      • 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 mome

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

          by lordcorusa (591938) on Thursday July 27 2006, @07:45PM (#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.
          [ Parent ]

          • 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 "Su

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

    by phantomfive (622387) on Thursday July 27 2006, @05:10PM (#15795075) Homepage 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, @05:15PM (#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, @05:45PM (#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.
      [ Parent ]
    • 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 goe

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

    by Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) on Thursday July 27 2006, @05:36PM (#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.
    • 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 th

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

      by Elladan (17598) on Thursday July 27 2006, @06:22PM (#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.
      [ Parent ]

    • 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

  • Torvalds unimpressed (Score:2, Informative)

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

    • Re:Torvalds unimpressed (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Enderandrew (866215)
      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

  • Fight fire with fire? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sixtyten (991538)
    The irony is that the GPL is making restrictions in order to fight them.

  • Treacherous (Score:5, Funny)

    by wiredlogic (135348) on Thursday July 27 2006, @07:59PM (#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.
    • The only GPL code that has any real traction in the enterprise is Linux. And they've already stated that they're perfectly happy with version 2 of the GPL.

    • Re:Microsoft doesn't need to do anything... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rm69990 (885744) on Thursday July 27 2006, @05:38PM (#15795243)
      Ummm, if you would learn to bloody read, you would know that the FSF TONED BACK the anti-drm provisions to state that DRM is completely fine, as long as the DRM doesn't impede on a licensees right to access to source code. In other words, if the DRM doesn't affect a licensees rights under the GPL, the DRM is fine, even if it restricts music files, video files, etc.

      As for the anti-patent stuff, please explain how YOU would word the license to allow people to distribute works covered by others' patents to all third-parties, royalty free, while giving them the right to do the same. It's simply impossible if the patent holder required royalties, the patent license and GPL would conflict.

      I love when people don't RTFA, and make themselves look like idiots in the process.
      [ Parent ]
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.