Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Debian Software Your Rights Online

Debian Team Discusses GPLv3 143

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the continued-good-feelings dept.
nanday writes to tell us that Newsforge (Owned by VA Software, just like Slashdot) is running an interesting look at the, recently reported on, GPLv3 by the Debian team. From the article: "Initially, Branden Robinson says, he was worried about GPL3. 'The amount of secrecy around the initial draft process had me very nervous,' he says. In addition, after the Debian consensus rejected the GNU Free Documentation License, he was concerned that GPL3 might become equally contentious in Debian. 'I'm glad to say that my fears are assuaged,' Robinson says. 'I was impressed with both the large and small changes. In a nutshell, I like it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian Team Discusses GPLv3 More

Debian Team Discusses GPLv3

Comments Filter:

  • Good! If Debian likes it... (Score:3, Informative)

    by SalsaDoom ( 14830 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:22PM (#14562576) Journal
    Nice to see that Debian is down with GPL3 -- I know that I personally am all for the new license. If Debian's cool with it, that should help a lot of people to accept it since Debian's well known as one of the most politically strict of all linux communities.

    Looking at the changes, from what I understand, I don't think it should be much of a problem for the -real- free software people. We'll have to wait and see for the other guys -- but honestly, they can stick with GPL2 and thats ok too. Everyone points to the "or later version at your option", but that part can actually be removed from the GPL2 license IIRC.

    From COPYING: "Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

    Thats form the current GPL2 that ships with the Linux kernel. So the user can specify strictly GPL2 if they choose too, or do not fully comply with GPL3.

    Easy as pie.
    • Well, you have to rememeber that as new versions of various programs change to version 3 of GPL, people/organisations that want to use the new versions will then have to use "Version 3 or later".
      • It's more complex than that.

        You'll end up with two types of applications - GPLv2 and GPLv3. A certain number will allow you to use either. Others will be stuck at one or the other (GPLv3 code cannot be incorporated in GPLv2 code.. forced obsolescence!) - so you the two won't cross-pollinate.

        Until I see a *final* version and lawyers have looked at it (slashdotters really don't count!!) all my GPL apps are GPLv2 only. Some are stuck like that forever due to the number of contributors.... it would be a brea

    • Thats form the current GPL2 that ships with the Linux kernel.

      And this is from the top of the Linux COPYING file:

      Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

      Linux is GPLv2 only and that will likely never change.

  • Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:28PM (#14562622)
    Go Debian! One of the last strongholds of The True Linux(tm).
    • Go Debian! One of the last strongholds of The True Linux(tm).

      Okay, maybe I'm just a little unaware, this is not flamebait. Can anyone compare Debian's freedom to Gentoo's freedom. I'm a Gentoo user, and I found this: Gentoo Social Contract [gentoo.org]. IIRC, Debian is GPL'd also.

      What am I missing here?

      • Re:Excellent (Score:3, Informative)

        by luvirini ( 753157 )
        The difference between Debian and other distributions is mainly in the "Fanatism" of sticking to the noble ideas. I have not followed Gentoo that much, but in general all other distros make choises that are "for good of the user" and include things that Debian rejects, but that make things easier for the user.

      • Re:Excellent (Score:2, Informative)

        by lindi ( 634828 )
        It's somewhat confusing indeed. That "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software" seems to only apply to "core components". With Debian it applies to all the 15490 packages.
        • Indeed. I've recently been looking for a new distribution because I decided I plainly didn't like certain aspects of Ubuntu. Knowing that I'd tried installing Debian and failed badly, and that I'd run Gentoo in the past, I tried installing Gentoo again. Last time, I was an open source user, nowadays I'm a free software user, but every time I tried installing software, Gentoo tried installing non-free packages. I had difficulty getting it to install basic stuff like Gnome without trying to install a non-free
    • Amen [brother|sister]!

  • DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:29PM (#14562629)
    Indeed I expect that the DRM part will be the big "Real kicker" specially when Linux kernel and other key software go to GPL3.

    Will be interesting to see how the fight of freedoms vs. DRM goes.

    • Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:42PM (#14562720) Homepage
      Indeed I expect that the DRM part will be the big "Real kicker" specially when Linux kernel and other key software go to GPL3.

      The Linux kernel has been GPLv2 only for a long time and it would be close to impossible to make the thousands of contributors relicense it. From what I've understood though, the FSF wants to relicense all software they have been assigned copyright to as GPLv3 only (you can still fork GPLv2 at that point though, and even create a competing GPLv2 only branch).

      • Re:DRM (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        GPL3 only will be a BAD thing. There is already a perception that that GPL restricts more than it frees.

        • Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

          by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 )
          Oh well - so you don't like GPL, be it v2 or v3. I happen to think that the GPL is one of the few licenses that REALLY helps me to have free/open software. Other licenses (say, BSD) allow companies to relicense a copy of the software with another license or even close the code.

          There's nothing wrong with that. But I happen to think that in this world companies are already having too many ways of getting money - DRM and software patents, for one - and they don't need help from hippy university students.

          I laug
      • Good point, as Linux Kernel is licenced as GPL version 2 only.

      • Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)

        by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @07:42PM (#14563171)
        And even if it could, it doesn't neccesarily means that GPL v3 would be useful for the kernel. Let me quote a mail from Linus on the matter [lkml.org] from a couple of hours ago:


        > This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
        > permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
        > separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
        > as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
        > added, but it was after the transition to v2).

        Bzzt. Look closer.

        The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
        been valid.

        The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
        language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
        actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
        about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
        want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
        source code.
        The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
        chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
        version" language), but the kernel in general never has.

        In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
        particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
        license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
        so explicitly. Linux never did.

        So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
        tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
        so that there wouldn't be any confusion.

        The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
        individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.

        And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
        require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
        I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
        happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
        code.

        > If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
        > someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
        > kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.

        No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
        not allow conversion.

        Conversion isn't going to happen.

                        Linus

        • Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)

          by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:23PM (#14563453) Homepage
          And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
          require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
          I wouldn't do it.

          I don't see anything in the draft [fsf.org] that would require Linus to release his private signing keys. That would be insane if it were true, but it isn't.

          The clarification on the licensing of the kernel (GPL v2 only and ever) is useful, though.

        • Re:DRM (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Schraegstrichpunkt ( 931443 ) *
          In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.

          No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to not allow conversion.

          Linus is wrong. Linux 2.0.40 does not state a particular version of the GPL, and GPLv2 section 9 (as shipped with that version of Linux) states:

          9. The Free Softwa

          • Re:DRM (Score:3, Informative)

            by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 )
            I'd say that this is "relative": at the start of the COPYING file [linux.no], I read: "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991". I'd say that it looks like Linus has modified the COPYING file on purpose just to _clarify_ the original intentions.
          • If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

            Depending on how you read that, any place that states "This program is licensed under GPLv2." that specificly mentions 2.0 as the version might count. Just because it isn't in LICENSE doesn't mean it could be somewhere else, since it is not part of the license as such (it is whereever you say that this code is placed under this license). Hell, placing the text of the GP

    • Roadblocks (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 )
      Will be interesting to see how the fight of freedoms vs. DRM goes.

      It's all the content producers need to make it official that they will not be supporting Linux. No music, no movies, and what most Slashdotters will notice most, no games. My opinion is that GPL3 is a step back for those that would like to advance the adoption of Open Source by commercial producers and users. Philosophically, it's a step forward, but in practical terms, it's going to create roadblocks.

      • It's all the content producers need to make it official that they will not be supporting Linux. No music, no movies, and what most Slashdotters will notice most, no games.

        Why would this be the case? What difference would GPLv3 make on any of these things? They aren't GPL v2 today, so they aren't going to be GPL v3 tomorrow. You don't need to release a program under the GPL for it to run in Linux, as the ample supply of proprietary software for the operating system shows.

        Unless you mean the anti-DRM senti
        • Or do you mean all these things will only run under a (You Can't Be) Trusted Computing environment, and this would require kernel support that GPL v3 would make inneffective? Well, guess what, it's already inneffective if you have to give the users the source code. Trusted Computing as the media empires imagine it will never exist in Linux. So what are we losing?

          Movies, music, and games...

          Hardware producers won't license the Trusted Computing technology unless they can be assured that the media companies

          • Hardware producers won't license the Trusted Computing technology unless they can be assured that the media companies are happy. And they won't be.

            Which has what to do with GPL v3 vs GPL v2? Nothing. They will not be happy with either version.
      • Neither Linux nor Xorg are GPL3'd, so there's no worries there for the FUDders. Linux is GPL2 and Xorg goes under the old Xfree86 license.
      • How many companies produce games for Linux anyway? I don't know that ID has ever used DRM in thier games.

    • Re:DRM (Score:2)

      by m50d ( 797211 )
      Linux won't switch. That would require getting permission from every contributor.

    • Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

      by plover ( 150551 ) * on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @07:05PM (#14562901) Homepage Journal
      What about patents? Think about a box like the NSLU2. Now, I don't know if Linksys holds any patents on it or not, but let's assume for the moment they held both software and hardware patents on it.

      Would they be able to continue to run a linux kernel on it? Can you run the linux kernel on a patented platform? Can you run patented software on a linux platform?

      If it turns out that you can still run patented software, what about kernel modules? Can you patent them or not?

      What if it turns out that you can't? Then what do you do about VMWARE? VMWARE can be used to run a Windows XP virtual machine, which for all we know is encrusted with thousands of patents.

      This whole "we enforce the following opinions about these uses of our software" thing is a bad idea, in general. Sure, they've made it plainly obvious that they don't want to be a party to building a TPM-based-machine. But what's next? No military uses? No "dual uses" (civilian and military)? "Sorry, can't write GPS software, it uses data that comes from a military owned satellite." "Can't put Word support in Open Office, it allows cross-platform usage of patented file formats." "Can't write an Asterisk plug-in, you might use that phone line to call Microsoft support."

      "Preamble

      The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users." [ emphasis mine ]

      I think they have to accept the good with the bad. All should mean "all". Freedom should mean "freedom".

      • I think they have to accept the good with the bad. All should mean "all". Freedom should mean "freedom".

        Then I would recommend BSD-license for you. Nobody is forcing you to use either GPL v2, GPL v3 or BSD. You have the choice.

        Here's a longer explanation: GPL is about freedom of the software. It is a response to the copyright-laws which seeks to divide users from the sourcecode of the programs they run. That is why GPL is popularly called CopyLeft.

        GPL is seeking to guaranteeing a user to modify the sourceco
    • First, a quick point about GPL v2: You can't make effective DRM software with it. How could you? Since GPL grants users the rights to gain the source code and to modify it, then as soon as you distribute your DRM app you have given the user the right to modify that app so that, after decrypting whatever it is that the program is designed to decrypt it writes it to disk in a non-protected format. They could modify it so that whatever keys it uses to decrypt the media are also written to disk.

      The only way

  • I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davidstrauss ( 544062 ) <david.davidstrauss@net> on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:29PM (#14562631)
    Adding DRM and spyware limitations means we cross into judging the user intent. Furthermore, denying things that are already defined "illegal" in the license is redundant. If it's illegal, it's illegal. There's no need to put it in the license to prevent people from doing it.

    I'm also against the DRM restrictions because I know the purpose of DRM extends well beyond music and videos. Corporations (and even some individuals) need strict control of their private data. I'm concerned that restricting DRM implmentations means entering grey area with respect to controlling data on corporate and shared computers.

    Finally, restricting DRM in the GPL is as pointless as restricting "illegal" things. No media company would implement their DRM under the GPL anyway. If a DRM implementation were GPL'd, someone could modify it so the decrypted data flows elsewhere. The GPL just doesn't offer a means to control information flow in software against the user's wishes.

    P.S. What's so "extreme" about a consistent view on civil liberties?

    • P.S. What's so "extreme" about a consistent view on civil liberties?

      It is "extreme" because big corporations do not like it.

      • I think you need to read the article. The two guys labeled "extreme" here are siding with business' freedom to use GPL'd software as they wish.
        • I did read it.. :)

          The point I was trying to make is not about this article "extremism" but in general the most common use of the word, as in "Extremism=Anything that the establishment does not like, however legal or good"

      • Why are content creators always referred to as "big corporations" here on Slashdot? Is it some sort of generic stereotype used to dismiss their rights?

        Hell, Slashdot's owned and run by one of those "big corporations."
        • Many content creators are reasonable and have reasonable rules for their content, others are not.

          The real problem comes from the fact that the "bad cases" make so much more noise than others, thus such ideas as yours come common.

    • I used "extreme" as a description, not a judgement.

      An extreme civil libertarian position is one that believes that rights extend to those things that are hostile to those rights. For example, an extreme position on free speech is that it should extend even to comments meant to restrict the right or to deny it to others. This is further than many civil libertarians would go, so it seems right to call it "extreme."

      Whether the position is right or not is another matter that I won't go into.

    • Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hhr ( 909621 )
      Actually, there is a point to prohibiting illegal activities in a license-- without doing so the license is still valid even if the law is broken.

      For example, when you apply for a work visa or green card you are told that you cannot sell drugs (or commit genocide, or...) while you have your visa. This clause easily allows the goverment to revoke your visa and kick you out of the country should you get caught selling drugs.

      Likewise, prohibiting software that illegaly invades a user's privacy makes it much ea
      • So what if the license is still valid? The person still can't use it for that purpose if it's illegal. The visa example is a valid comparison, but do we really want isolated illegal acts to invalidate that person or organization's entire use of anything GPL? How far would it extend? Who really agrees to the GPL? If it's the organization, do we want to shut down Linux use at Microsoft and Apple? They do, after all, do some software development for DRM applications on GPL'd software. I don't support a viral

    • illegal ? here ? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by fredouil ( 891612 )
      "denying things that are already defined "illegal" in the license is redundant. If it's illegal, it's illegal. There's no need to put it in the license to prevent people from doing it."

      where do you think it is illegal, in Germany ? France ? China ? Phillipine ? Korea ? US law is the law for a small minority (fortunately), i think it is important for the GPL to be accurate on this.

    • Say what you want about whether DRM is good or bad. But making it illegal for people to reverse engineer it is just stupid. And that's all the GPL seems to be trying to stop.
    • Adding DRM and spyware limitations means we cross into judging the user intent.

      True. But this is the GPL -- GNU Public License... not 'merely' an open source license. GNU has always had a philisophical bent. They are enshrining a bit more of that philosophy in the license.

      Furthermore, denying things that are already defined "illegal" in the license is redundant. If it's illegal, it's illegal. There's no need to put it in the license to prevent people from doing it.

      It can make it easier to prosecute offender
      • True. But this is the GPL -- GNU Public License... not 'merely' an open source license. GNU has always had a philisophical bent. They are enshrining a bit more of that philosophy in the license.

        True, but the problem is that the GPL is the de facto Open Source license, and in most people's minds is synonymous with Open Source.

        • True, but the problem is that the GPL is the de facto Open Source license, and in most people's minds is synonymous with Open Source. I'm afraid I don't see the problem there. First, the GPLv2 is not going to be superceded by the GPLv3 except at the express wishes of the authors. Even software written under v2 or later, as I understand it, cannot be further *restricted* by clauses in v3. So even if the gnu foundation become a bunch of raving lunatics we wouldn't be bound to follow them. Second, the only
    • GPL3's anti-DRM features are required in a very real sense.

      It's like this. Under GPLv2, your only real obligation was to supply the source code and the right to redistribute it.

      But with DRM, what's to prevent you digitally securing the binaries and having a system on which only "trusted" binaries are allowed to run. The source is all but useless now, as anyone compiling it will need to get their binaries signed to run on Vista++ or OSXII.

      You kill free software as the source alone is not enough to create a "

      • Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @08:13PM (#14563375) Homepage
        But with DRM, what's to prevent you digitally securing the binaries and having a system on which only "trusted" binaries are allowed to run. The source is all but useless now, as anyone compiling it will need to get their binaries signed to run on Vista++ or OSXII.

        I bolded the real problem, which the GPL v3 does nothing to solve. All it does it say that the GPLed software cannot be an "effective technological protection measure", meaning it can't invoke the DMCA clauses that make circumventing such a thing illegal. That still won't let you get your modified binary signed by Microsoft to run on Vista++, so the source is still useless.
        • Wasn't there a part where it says that if you distribute binaries for a "Trusted Computing" platform that have to be signed in order to run, you also have to distribute the keys required to sign them?

          This is just a clarification of GPL2; you have to supply not just source code but everything required to build the binaries if it's not part of the 'standard install'. If your code requires your own custom libraries, headers, configuration, etc to build, you have to include them. If it has to be signed before i
          • Wasn't there a part where it says that if you distribute binaries for a "Trusted Computing" platform that have to be signed in order to run, you also have to distribute the keys required to sign them?

            http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft [fsf.org]

            The only reference to anything like a key is in Section 6. Non-source Distribution:
            "Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking,
            • Section 1 para 3
              Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output.

              In otherwords; if you port GPL software onto a system that on

    • DRM restrictions (Score:3, Informative)

      by Arker ( 91948 )
      I don't agree. The way those restrictions are worded they shouldn't affect legitimate uses of the technology. They just prohibit pulling a Tivo - and Tivo, by the way, is proof this is necessary. They've done exactly what this will prohibit - they've stayed within the boundaries of GPL v.2 technically, while violating the intent completely. Their users can get the source, but they are prevented from using it in any meaningful way. The DRM section of v.3a, as I read it, is rather narrowly aimed at preventing
    • Corporations (and even some individuals) need strict control of their private data

      I wonder how people plans to fix that with DRM. Once a DRM'ed document is loaded in word, you can jump the drm protection by....taking a screenshot? Oh well: The operative system may forbid to take screenshots of the windows that has DRM content (like mac os x does with DRm'ed videos I've been told). You may get your digital camera or even a vigilance camera could do it (you don't need to be 007 to do that).

      But well, the opera

      • The operative system may forbid to take screenshots of the windows that has DRM content...like mac os x does with DRm'ed videos I've been told

        just for the record, it is only the bundled dvd player that does this...open-source alternatives like VLC [videolan.org] allow you to take a screenshot just fine.

        perhaps i'm the eternal optimist, but i have a feeling the open-source/free software communities will be able to ultimately prevail in the drm scene...

      • Oh well: The operative system may forbid to take screenshots of the windows that has DRM content (like mac os x does with DRm'ed videos I've been told). You may get your digital camera or even a vigilance camera could do it (you don't need to be 007 to do that).

        Well, pretty much any company that implemented a DRM-protection scheme for its documents is going to be banning cameras in the work place anyway.

        Besides which, you miss the point. The point is not to stop a malicious employee from purposefully leakin
        • Well, pretty much any company that implemented a DRM-protection scheme for its documents is going to be banning cameras in the work place anyway.

          Really? Could you give me the name and localization of some of those companies? I'd like to have a new computer for free...
    • So if I put Linux on a Media Player and publish the source and comply with GPLv2, but then use DRM so that my media player only talks to my server encrypted and only takes my own firmware upgrades I wonder how exactly you want to "modify it so the decrypted data flows elsewhere". Get it?
      • Then the DRM would be in the firmware, not in the GPL'd software. Result: GPL banning DRM still has no effect.
        • I am sorry, I didn't put it the right way. On the router there will only be GPLv2 software. An open source drm system. Impossible to hack, because firmware updates are only taken encrypted and signed from company server. Am I so hard to understand? As long as you don't find any errors (and that happened with Playstation as well, even though it was closed source) in the implementation to hack it I am save. They can even use the open source developement model to make a secure drm system.
  • Is this a good thing considering that the Debian Project is many times much more zealous about their definition of "Free" than the FSF? Just wondering about everyone's input.
    • It is good thing to get imput from as many as possible views for something as important as GPL. The previous version has made a big difference in many things, so I expect the next version will make too.
    • They tend to be fairly close. The real disagreements come on non-core issues. The Debian Project believes that something like the FSF's four freedoms should apply to everything in a program, while the FSF limits itself simply to code. This means that the Debian project does not accept the GNU Free Documentation License. Conversely, the FSF takes issue with the Debian project maintaining a repository of non-Free software, since this is seen as an endorsement of (what the FSF views as) antisocial behaviou
    • Others have spoken to the differences between Debian and FSF in terms of what should and shouldn't be free. Personally, as a member of the Debian Cult I am happy to know that Debian tends to err on the side of more freedom, even though it occaisionally means less freedom to me as a user in terms of what is available from the official repositories.

      Likewise, in terms of levels of agreement with, endorsement of, or use of GPL, IMO the more differing interpretations the better. I want choice and choose my distr
  • Full disclosure. Everyone knows, of course. But this is just the sort of things the "grown up" sites do, so slashdot should too.

  • I don't like the GPL v3 draft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:37PM (#14562690) Homepage
    The definition of "illegal" in reference to spyware is potentially messy.

    1. Illegal usage will change over time, and vary quite widely across different jurisdictions. For example something as mundane as a web proxy log may be illegal depending on the context and jurisdiction.

    2. Restrictions on use in that it can not be an effective copy control mechanism.
    the freedom to run the program for any purpose (called "freedom 0")
    I understand the intent, however such a restriction IMAO violates a fundamental principal of free software.
    • Indeed, that restriction seemed to be the biggest possible problem that Debian people might have with the new version.

      I am myself of two minds about this and the thing that was not included as standard.. patent retaliation.

      Both of them have good and noble goals and might be needed in the current business climate, but they leave a bit sour taste in mouth.

    • Re:I don't like the GPL v3 draft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @06:55PM (#14562819) Journal
      For example something as mundane as a web proxy log may be illegal depending on the context and jurisdiction.

      Not to mention that in some places, bad people will use that as a justification to shut down things they don't like. In a country that is trying to enforce censorship, they may deem that open-source software is violating its own license by allowing citizens to circumvent blockages. They will argue that this software is giving them the ability to "illegally invade privacy" (of whatever), and hence is illegal by its own license. Imagine how awful it would be if such a regime had a way to prevent free/open-source software from being used! The censorship would become that much worse.

      Sounds crazy perhaps, but twisting legal wordings to justify their actions is what some people do. That's why I'm always a little worried about the GPL being extended much beyond its original scope.
    • So what would you do to define 'illegal' without restricting?

      Sergio
      http://www.salvaneschi.com.ar/ [salvaneschi.com.ar]
    • The major part of the DRM clause that seems iffy is this one:

      to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy,

      The important remaining parts:

      Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

      I believe this bit is redundant, because this right is already guaranteed by the definition of "complete corresponding source": The "Complete Corresp
    • 1. So if its already illegal then the GPL just says you can't protect it with GPLv3 licensed DRM. Whereas you could protect it with any other form of DRM, thereby creating a tunnel through which you could illegally steal end user's information and it would normally be illegal under the DMCA for anyone to break your encryption to prove your actions.

      2. DRM. That's your problem with the GPLv3? It was intended to dissolve the protections the DMCA granted to DRM. DRM, inherently, violates the fundamental pri

      • Re:I don't like the GPL v3 draft (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @10:35PM (#14564379) Homepage
        Considering the free software definition I will form my response.
        http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org]

        1a. I don't think free software should force and/or encourage behaviours beyond that of ensuring the software is free.

        1b. What is legal and illegal is inconsistent both over time and location. Let the laws in place deal with that. Using a software licence and copyright law to somehow back up "real law" is at best redundant and at worst subjective and confusing. For a second example a police keystroke logger can be both legal and illegal depending on the specifics of the case.

        2. I agree that DRM is logically incompatible with the GPL, if you have all source to make a fully functional implementation you could easily hack around the DRM restrictions.

        We not only disagree with you, we think you're stupid for even mentioning it.

        Fortunately there are more open minded people than you involved in this debate.
        I think the GPL should adhere as directly and as simply as possible to the free software definition.
        • Do you think police keystroke loggers should be legal? Should the GPLv3 be modified to allow the DMCA to protect the police and law enforcement officials from wiretaps, or simply not void the license even if their actions may be illegal in some locations at some times?
        • One good thing in the GPL v3 is that it states explicitly that the user has the right to bypass the DRM in software covered by the GPL. I don't know that there is actualy an avenue of attack whereby the DMCA could be used to bypass the GPL, but it's amazing what lawyers can read into contracts so it's a good thing to head it off at the pass.

          The rest of the DRM section is redundant, or worrisome, but this is a useful clause.

  • Condensed version of Public Licensing arguments: (Score:5, Funny)

    by clovis ( 4684 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @07:21PM (#14563013)
    Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
    Reg: But you can't have babies.
    Stan: Don't you oppress me.
    Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
    [Stan starts crying.]
    Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
    Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
  • What did Debian find wrong with the Free Documentation License?

  • What about open source DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by samj ( 115984 ) * <samj@samj.net> on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @09:01PM (#14563734) Homepage
    There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm]. And then there's non-free software for which there is not (yet) any competitive free equivalent - if it's protected then it's also more likely to be affordable.

    Given that there are situations where it can be useful, why should a free software license restrict my freedom to use this technology? So long as we're going to be force fed it anyway, why not *encourage* free software implementations?

    On the other hand, the DMCA is pure evil. 'Effective technical prevention measures' I can deal with as I am confident that freedom will prevail. Criminalising the bypassing of 'ineffective technical prevention mechanisms' is insane. However this is something to be solved by lobbying and educating users, not by adding short-lived, jurisdiction-specific terms to a long-lived, globally significant license.

    What is most amusing about these clauses is that I'm not convinced they have teeth - who in their right mind is going to write an open source 'technical prevention measure' anyway. In fact they're more likely to bite us - consider issues like the implementation of the broadcast flag in open source software for example. Plus existing software that matters is unlikely to be relicensed anyway (eg Linux).

    Anyway, the last version has served us well for 15 years. The new version references specific laws that may very well be repealed in the next few years, and more than likely will end up being a small sample of a large arsenal of consumer-hostile legislation.

    I'll be interested to see how the feedback received shapes the license, that's for sure.
    • It seems to me that you can implement a DRM scheme and GPL3 the code. What you can't do is use DRM to circumvent the intent of the GPL the way Tivo does with their signed kernels. If you do it anyway and attempt to use the DMCA or a DMCA like law against anyone who circumvented it, then the license provides a potent legal defense. Of course, it could be the language needs to be tightened up but that is what seems to be the FSF's intent: you will not use technological means to prevent downstream recipient
    • There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm].

      I don't get this. How does DRM protect the distribution of personal information, etc. It can restrict the distribution of the file that contains the information, but it doesn't pro


    • There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm]. And then there's non-free software for which there is not (yet) any competitive free equivalent - if it's protected then it's also more likely to be affordable.

      Given that there are sit

  • An Attempt to Clarify the DRM Clause (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roger_Wilco ( 138600 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2006 @10:47PM (#14564467) Homepage

    I was at the GPLv3 launch conference, and I think people are misunderstanding what was intended, and what was written (since it's pretty clear).

    The DRM restriction is not intended to forbid, e.g. RedHat from signing their packages with a secret key. It's to prevent them from making a system that refuses to use packages that are unsigned or signed by somebody else.

    For example, say I made a modified version of that little applet that times when your tea is ready, and put it into a special device for this purpose, and called it "Tea-vo". I then set up the OS on this Tea-vo so that it checks to see if the copy of the program that it run is signed by my company, and refuse to run any other. This means that if someone else (say, Richard) buys my device, I must give them the source code, of course, but if they compile it, my Tea-vo will refuse to run their compiled code. This reduces Richard's freedom. He's free to use the software on other hardware, but not in the intended way (i.e. on my Tea-vo device).

    This is my understanding of the purpose of the DRM clause.

  • I don't know about everyone else, but one of the things I do when I expose people to the idea ofr free software is encourage them to read a copy of GPL version 2. It is a very readable and understandable license. It makes a very good learning tool.

    The GPL 3 draft is clearly inferior in this respect. There's no way I would push that forward as an example to a free software newbie.

    I'm really disappointed.
    • The GPL 3 draft is clearly inferior in this respect. There's no way I would push that forward as an example to a free software newbie.

      I agree, but the purpose of a free licence is to protect the rights of the authors and the users of free software, not to provide an easy example for newbies. Simplicity is of course a good thing, and I'm very glad about GPL v2 on that matter. But technology advances and licences should evolve to cover new important topics such as patents, DRM and software-as-a-service. It's
  • I believe the GPL should protect user rights.
    I believe every user should have access to the code source of the application he uses.
    I believe the GPLv3 draft does not enforce it (*)
    I think an oline application built on GPL2'd code is an application that does not enforce Freedom.
    I think the GPLv3 should deal with online applications (webapps).

    (*) the GPLv2 doesn't enforce freedom too for webapps but it was written long before webapps exist.
    • I think the GPLv3 should deal with online applications (webapps).

      This has already been brought up, and there was a possibility that GPLv3 would include this. I think it would have been a stake in the heart of the GPL.

      GPLv2 predated the modern Internet, but it didn't predate online services, and it did deal with similar situations.

      First, back in the '70s and even most of the '80s, remote access to someone else's computer was a very common way of using software. The GPL didn't require service bureaux or bulle
  • Gpl v3 makes one thing clear: it's all about ideology. If you don't subscribe to the ideology (e.g. because you run a for profit business instead of a commune) you should use a different license.

    Actually the v3 is a bit confusing. Licenses don't need upgrades but clarifications if there is a legal error in them. v3 is different from v2 and not necessarily an improvement depending on your point of view. The GPL is generally understood to be v2 (and controversial enough in that version). v3 suggests it is the

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close