Free Software Foundation Begins Rewriting the GPL 283
Robert writes "The first update to the GNU General Public License in 15 years has begun. Details about the process and guidelines by which it will be updated by the Free Software
Foundation, and the free/open source community at large, are now available. The FSF has announced plans to release the first draft of the new license for comment at a conference to be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in mid-January 2006." From the article: "This is the first time the GPL has been open to a public development process. Stallman created version 1 himself in 1985 and introduced version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice and collecting developer opinion. The rapid adoption of Linux and hundred of other software products licensed under the GPL makes the development of GPLv3 a significant event, and one that is now likely to involve some of the biggest vendors in the industry, with Hewlett-Packard, Novell, and Red Hat already having declared their intention to participate."
The largest amendment to this new draft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The largest amendment to this new draft... (Score:5, Funny)
The requirement that all free software be called GNU/Software.
My First Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Simon.
Re:My First Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in my office we call it busy work.
Re:Software Patents... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My First Question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My First Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My First Question (Score:3, Insightful)
If I see some GPL code, I cannot just use it. I will have to check if its the correct version of GPL before I can bring it in.
This will end in tears.
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Big IF (Score:2)
Re:My First Question (Score:3, Interesting)
First off the auther said GPLm not BSD, Artistic, or WTFPL.
Secondly it does matter, because there is no requirement for source-code download linking in GPL
If that clause does make it into GPL V3+ it will make a big honking difference.
GPLv2 GPLv3 compatibility (Score:2)
For example if they make the GPL an EULA.
But that's not an option. (Score:3, Insightful)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Anyone using the GPL v2 is potentially forced into having their software licensed under the GPL v3, and the GPL v4, and the GPL v5, or any other future version of the GPL.
Even if that particular user
Re:But that's not an option. (Score:2)
I believe linux itself is a v2 only license.
"savvy authors"? (Score:2)
Well I *do* ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you sign a contract to rent a place that said "the landlord's nephew can at anytime change the terms of this contract at will"?
Re:Well I *do* ... (Score:2)
Re:Well I *do* ... (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, wait a goddamned minute here!
GPL v2 only ? was it a good move (Score:2)
Not forcing distribution of source code when access is permitted yet no distibution of the binary has taken is one of the contested issues being discussed for the GPL v3.
One group claims this is the intended behaviour and within the spirit of the GPL. One group claims this is a loophole and is against the spirit of the GPL.
Depending what is decided the GPLv3 may have one group
Re:But that's not an option. (Score:2)
Re:But that's not an option. (Score:3, Informative)
When you download my code, licended under, say, GPLv2, and it says this.. it means that you may distribute deriviations of my code under the GPLv2 if you wish, or a later version, if you wish. How you want to apply this is up to you; I force you to do nothing.
If you wish to include the same clause, allowing future versions to be used, that was completely your choice.
Nobody is forced into anything at all.. the rightsholders deliberately gave you the right t
It was a choice of the licensor, no force involved (Score:2)
Re:It was a choice of the licensor, no force invol (Score:2)
Not nice, but hardly catastrophic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My First Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem is that this changes the GPL into a EULA. Right now, the GPL doesn't attempt to restrict anything, it merely grants privileges that would not usually be in effect. That's why it's such a strong license.
To change the GPL to include restrictions on how you use the software would seem to run counter to the ideals of Free Software; namely that you are free to use the software as you please. It's also vulnerable to the same criticisms of other EULAs. Basically, the only thing that allows copyright holders to bind you to terms is the fact that you are copying. But copying for the purpose of using the software (e.g. installation) is explicitly not copyright infringement under USA law. That means that if you are merely using the software, the copyright holder has no leverage to bind you to their terms.
Re:My First Question (Score:3, Informative)
The kind of clauses being speculated about are those such as, (very broadly) you may not remove the software's ability to provide a link to the source code to the end user.
Copyright law reserves the rights of distribution and modification to the copyright holder. So the copyright holder may grant you the right to distribute and modify the software as long as you don't remove the source code distribution functionality.
Re:My First Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
The exact quote of the copyright holder's right is "(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" If you look at the definitions, "prepare" is not defined specificly but it used in the definition of "create":
"A work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Close.
The copyright holder has no say at all on whether or not I may modify my own copy of the software.
More interestingly, however...
Even if I modify my own copy of the software for use on a public server, as long as I do not actually in any way distribute the program to anyone else, that is, make any copies that are not covered by the "persona
Sorta misses the point (Score:2)
Als
Re:Sorta misses the point (Score:2)
GPL doesn't limit how you use the software, neither does it require that you publish modifications, the GPL only kicks in when you distribute your software, as long as you don't distribute it you can do whatever you want. And distribution isn't 'use' since copyright laws says otherwise, has nothing todo with the GPL itself.
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Even under what might be in the proposed new license, your use of a licensed program is not restricted at all. Rather, you just might have a new obligation to distribute GPL'ed code that you use in a publicly exhibited application. If you don't want to distribute the code, then don't public
GPLv3 != EULA (Score:4, Insightful)
To change the GPL to include restrictions on how you use the software would seem to run counter to the ideals of Free Software; namely that you are free to use the software as you please.
I would disagree with this interpretation.
The GPLv2 has never said anything nor placed restriction on how you use the software. In effect, the GPL only comes into play when you some to redistriute the software, and says that you must redistribute the source code when you distribute the binaries to others.
The GPLv3 again will not say anything or place restriction on how you, you use the software. You're still free to tinker as you please privately and keep the changes to yourself. Again on distribution you must include those changes.
However the GPLv3, in response to potential or actual shenannegans with web deployment, will specify that when you also come to offer your software as a service to users, you must also include the changes to your code, and make them and the original code visible to those users.
This makes a lot of sense. When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them. Albiet now the licence is for an extremely limited time, and the calculations are taking place on my machine. However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.
In a way the GPLv3 is a lot better than GPLv2. The GPLv2 only covered the distribution of the binary of the program. GPLv3 covers the service of the program, or more succinctly, the program itself. If you offer the service of the program to someone else, directly, in whatever way, then you must show them your source code. You can see that binaries fall under this definition as well.
Of course companies will try to write wrapper programs to get around this, so that users are not directly using their app, etc, etc, etc. However, I think most won't go to the bother and will just publish their code. After all, how many trade secrets are going to be in your average php/asp page anyway.
It's all about making sure that users are empowered, and that software is both transparent and modifyable to everyone. Stallman originally argued on the grounds of modifyability, which of course is critical to the whole process. But the transparency conferred by this has benefits for the public at large which outweight even the benefits of modifyability. But you need modifyability in order for software to be free. Just having transparency would be like am autocracy having transparency in its government offices. You might be able to see what's going on, but you still can't do anything about it.
Re:GPLv3 != EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
You are playing semantic word games. The users of the service are no more using the software than I am using the accounting software of my accountant when he does my taxes. Service is a use, and by regulating servicing, the GPLv3 will be regulating usage. Say goodbye to GPLv2 Clause 0!
This isn't merely the nose of the camel entering the te
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Man, this just goes too far. I get the feeling that if Stallman had been around at the invention of the typewriter, I'd still be writing longhand for fear of donating all my copyright.
Re:My First Question (Score:3, Funny)
You can write code in RMS's editor, Emacs, without having to put it under the GPL.
He's not interested in "restricting your freedom" (if that's what you choose to feel like the GPL does) to do whatever the hell you want with your own code. He's interested in restricting your freedom" to do whatever the hell you want with HIS CODE.
If you don't want the GPL to 'infect' your application, then DON'T USE GPL'D CODE. Write it yourself, you laz
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
But if the GPL is changed so that someho
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Now, it's a different matter to discuss whether such a situation is, indeed, in need of a remedy,
Re:My First Question (Score:5, Informative)
* Language that is happier with different jurisdictions. (some legal terms have very different meanings in different countries)
* Patents. Patents Icky. Dealing with Patents Icky.
* Wrapping binaries. I think some parties want some more clear language here to prevent violations of the spirit of the GPL.
* with GPLv2, if you expose the service of the software but not the binary, you don't have to distribute changes. So I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.
I don't think the idea is to toss the GPLv2, but instead to keep doing the same thing...only more so.
I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this violate the spirit of the GPL? We'd have to ask Mr. Stallman for an official answer, but in my opinion, the GPL was intended to maximize people's freedom with regards to the software they use, and I don't see how forcing web sites to publish their server code enhances anyone's freedom.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
The problem with making this change it that it would change the GPL from a copyright licence, to an End-User Lincence which may have serious problems with enforcement.
It might be worth doing a
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about like saying that if you come over to visit me in my house, you have the right to paint it.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
No, it's like saying that the guy who built my house for me can force me to give you those blueprints, and the blueprints of any rooms I added myself, under penalty of civil action.
You can ASK me all you want; I don't have to say yes.
concluding the GPL House analogy... (Score:2)
But if there WERE such things, then visitors should be allowed to copy the blueprints.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
Perhaps I used a poor example. The concern comes when services become all server-based.
If MS made a version of Word that worked like Writely [writely.com] for example, and used OpenOffice.org as its code base, they could put the bookmark on very Windows PC and sell accounts for 1 Gajillion dollars, but never distribute a _binary_, and thus never have to redistribute their code changes.
Where is the line between an application being server-based (and thus not "distrubted")
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
I could also maintain an internal version of the Linux kernel with better network throughput. Would I legally owe a copy of my changes to visitors to my sites? How about patches to Gnucash, since my customers are "using" the invoices that it generates?
Those examples might be dumb, but the point is th
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Not dumb at all, for the reasons you specify. However, in a better example above, I pointed out making an Office version that was web-based and build on OpenOffice code, and selling accounts. This is not appreciably different than distributing binaries, except that it is legally different. GPLv3 wants
Re:My First Question (Score:2)
Yeah! Windows 2000 did everything I wanted it to do as well, but damn Microsoft had to go make Windows XP! Bastages!
Why does Linux make this important? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's the Linux connection here?
Re:Why does Linux make this important? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why does Linux make this important? (Score:2)
Stallman's GPLv3 mailing list (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.gplv3.fsf.org/index05 [fsf.org]
I hesitated because it didn't just say "subscribe".
The submit button says "I want to participate." which is hard to do without knowing exactly what you're participating in first.
Re:Stallman's GPLv3 mailing list (Score:2, Informative)
My vote.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My vote.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the problem with that is that someone could then distribute binaries, presumably for profit of some kind, and make the sources publicly available but hard to obtain. How would you stop someone from, say, obscuring the location of the sources, requiring free registration (read: handing over of e-mail address to spammers) to the site to obtain them, or some other such nonsense? Requiring them to be distributed with the binaries means that the sources are guaranteed to be as easy to obtain as the binar
Re:My vote.. (Score:2)
Re:My vote.. (Score:2, Interesting)
This wording was created pre-internet boom, so it is not
Re:My vote.. (Score:2)
Someone hasn't read the GPL - that's exactly what it does say. It offers three different ways of making the source available.
Geez. This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros. They balloon to incredibly huge sizes and a good portion of that is because they have to include the sources.
They don't have to include the sources - they do because enough people find them useful. At the very leas
Re:My vote.. (Score:2)
Re:My vote.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're aware that most (all?) distros don't include source in their releases? They are typically released on separate source discs which you'd have to go out of
Re:My vote.. (Score:2)
Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are actual issues with the license, then a rewrite is a good thing - all I'm concerned about is that people don't waste time developing a new license when one isn't needed. In the end, its adoption will be decided by the various projects - on a case by case basis, so just because there is a version 3, doesn't guarantee adoption, unless it brings benefits.
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPLv2 doesn't properly deal with patent issues, only copyright. Thus, with some legal smoke and mirrors, it is possible to comply with the letter of the GPLv2, gaining free use of other GPLv2 code in the process, while shipping your code/product under patent restrictions, preventing it from being redistrobutable or adjustable freely.
~Rebecca
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:3, Insightful)
In effect, you must either license the patent royalty-free for derived works of the GPL'd code, or you must not use the GPL. Or, as the preamble puts it:
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:2)
Of course, even this can't defend against patent hoarding thinktank companies.
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:2)
However by distributing a patent license with the work you do have a very good defence.
From sec 7 it is quite clear that unless a patent license is granted you can not distribute this code.
Two wrongs don't make a right, however they would have to argue against knowingly violating copyright, while you could argue that you had a reason to believe they granted you a patent license.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of t
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, some people are somewhat annoyed that Google has a huge number of linux boxes running, and that they have tweaked and customized the linux code to get their own special version of linux. They clearly benefit from the open-source nature of linux, but do not release the changes they make. This is allowed under t
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:2)
If the users of Google are the people who search, then the users of the Military's use of GPL code is most likely on the other end of that Tomahawk, and in a few seconds, I dont think they'll care a whole lot about getting the code that's about to blow them up.
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:2)
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some questions which will likely be considered in the GPLv3 drafting process:
1) Back in 1991, the GPL was written centered on specifics to United States Copyright Law. With the diversification of international copyright law since the Berne convention -- some countries have implemented various manifestations of DMCA like laws, others have not -- how does a license that must govern international transactions of copyright account for these discrepancies?
2) How can software patents encumber free software? For example, let's say I write a word processor that is licensed under the GPLv2 and I submit and receive a patent for my word processor document format. If you write a derivative work of my word processor, are you infringing on my patent? Does that violate the principles of software freedom?
3) How does Trusted Computing encumber free software? For example, let's say I write the software for a DVR that uses GPL software and is licensed under the GPL. But let's further say that my DVR used TPM, and it won't run the DVR software if it is not signed with my private key. You can modify the source, and you may even be able to load a modified binary back onto the DVR, but without me signing your binary, it won't run. Does that violate the principles of software freedom?
I don't know the answers. They haven't been decided yet. These may not be all the questions -- they may not be among the questions. But that these questions are out there are symbolic of the need for a community-driven effort to reassess the future of software freedom.
The GPLv3 process will be a discussion of the free software community on how we can best ensure that the essential freedoms the GPL tries to protect are in fact protectable. And though rms is the final arbiter of what GPLv3 will actually be, these are questions that we the free software community as a whole need to discuss.
-jag, a.k.a. jag@fsf.org
Re:Reasons for a rewrite ? (Score:2)
$100 says this is to address software patents... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$100 says this is to address software patents.. (Score:2)
"In what way and why?"
Because for the last few years one of the knocks against GPL'ed applications has been that they MAY be infringing on patents held by commercial applications. You can call it simple FUD, but I'm just following the money here. This initiative is partially being funded by a couple of commercial entities who depend on GPL software and would very much like the patent vs. GPL license FUD to go away. The intent of this initiative is to revise the license. Therefore, I'm suggesting tha
Re:$100 says this is to address software patents.. (Score:2)
Re:$100 says this is to address software patents.. (Score:2)
By agreeing that others have the right to distribute your patent you are implying they now have a valid licence to do so.
We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD" (Score:5, Insightful)
Many developers wish to make use of open source software, but are getting to the point where they're not sure what exactly they're allowed to do with some particular piece of software.
These developers are not lawyers, and do not want to waste their time trying to figure out fairly complex licenses. Individual consultants and smaller development firms can't necessarily afford to hire a lawyer to verify that they're complying with the terms of all the licenses their project may be subjected to.
I know many professional developers who won't even touch LGPL'ed libraries. They stick with software released under the BSD license, for instance, because it has very clear and concise terms. They know what they can do with such software, and thus can focus on developing solutions, rather than getting bogged down in legal nonsense.
While the GPL v3 may offer some degree of protection with respect to patents, any such benefits may be mitigated by the fact that many developers out there are not interested in becoming lawyers. They don't want to get bogged down trying to interpret relatively complex licenses.
Re:We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD" (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way I wrote the original (?13 years ago?) draft that became the 1.0 LGPL you mention. John Gilmore suggested to me what turned out to be the most important clause: that you could dynamically link to such a library without having any licensing impact at all. Those terms are more liberal than any cash-royalty license I've ever seen (and don't even include the announcement clause of the BSD license), and made Linux's userland possible.
This is de facto IP law reform (Score:2)
THAT won't happen, so I suppose I can watch the tinkering with the GPL while I wait.
NYTimes' take... (Score:3, Informative)
My pragmatic approach (Score:2)
I don't agree with some things RMS says and does, but the GPL is a common industry standard, and most people have at least a vague sense of what it means and implies. When I used the Artistic and ZLIB/LIBPNG livcense, it caused no end of confusion; using GPL cuts down on questions.
I've successfully gone the dual-licensing route, GPL for open source clients, and a "non-free" (as in beer) license that can (depending on the customer's needs) spell out specific rights, included the ability to include my cod
Re:My pragmatic approach (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish the FSF well in its quest to create the perfect balance between freedom and the protection of creators' rights.
The GPL is designed around the idea that "what's good for the community is good for the individual." Because of this reasoning, the GPL seeks to defend the public first by making the developer/contributor give up certain luxuries, such as that of closing the source or not releasing it (this in turn helps your FOSS project not to be hijacked and closed by a private enterprise). It allows
The GPLv3 will be internet-ready (Score:2)
The legal trap (Score:3, Interesting)
Well there we have it. Where the GPLv2 was and still is maybe the most brilliant example of a software license ever, I today already see it coming that GPLv3 will become the deepest pitch hole in which a Open Source project can slide into. Where in the recent past originating project authors like Harald Welte from iptables could single handed see their GPLv2 being validated in court, by use of limited efforts, i predict the death of open source, simply by the need of outrageous legal resources to defend your GPLv3 license in court.
When that happens, Free and Open Source Software using the GPL License will have died in the hands of the humble programmers, and big software corporations will use GPLv3 as a disguised License cover to simply continue their old practices, and feed their Corporations with the efforts of a new generation of open source programmer employees, who have been trained to think that their job is helping the open source community.
The GPLv3 might even derange GPL-ed Open Source into big Corporations only projects , as no ordinary hobby programmer will be able to afford the costs of such a thing.
So do not fall into this trap. The GPLv2 has never been overturned so far in court. Why introduce a expensive legal vehicle, which the GPLv3 might become, to see the GPL finally get defeated in Court, only because the defendants went out of cash?
Robert
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:2)
Because the GPL has, you know, so much to do with robots and everything...
Re:your sig (OT) (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite. Is it your public encryption key? An MD5 checksum? A really big number in hexadecimal? A highly compressed core dump?
Re:Largely irrelivant (Score:2)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
I think this (along with, of course, other parts of the license) is fair warning to developers that their code is not only subject to the particular version of the license under which they submitted it, but to any later version. If the developer didn't want their code t
Re:Largely irrelivant (Score:2)
Re:Largely irrelivant (Score:2)
Yes, I realize that. I figured that the question in the parent post would pretty much be moot for cases like the Linux kernel itself, so I responded referring to the general case where the clause is present.
Re:Why was this categorized as Linux? (Score:2)
What a punch in the nuts for GNU, too... the FSF starts drafting a new GPL, and it's categorized as "Linux" (not even "GNU/Linux") on Slashdot.
Re:Why was this categorized as Linux? (Score:2)
Re:Why was this categorized as Linux? (Score:2)
Re:Yay for communism! (Score:2)
Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio (Score:3, Insightful)
When two people have two different goals why should we try and force them to work together?
Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio (Score:3, Funny)
I wasn't aware they did - they work much better than chopsticks for most Westerners, for instance...
Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio (Score:2)
Killer, as in deal breaker. If you maintain a local patchset of a Free Software program, then you've created a fork. Make that illegal - assuming that were even possible - and you've truly killed the program.
But the overall benefit for the community of this is less than if the change was integrated into the mainstream develo
Re:GPL bah! (Score:2)
Sigh... The BSD and GPL are two different licences that cover different needs and are appropriate for different situations. Anyone who claims one is "superior" to the other is either misinformed, trolling, or just stupid.