GPLv3 Released 278
A GNU Dawn writes "The GPL v3 has just been released. Among other things, the released version grandfathers in the Novell deal so that Microsoft's SLES coupons will undermine their patent threats, replaces references to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act with more specific language, and clarifies that using BitTorrent to convey a GPLed work is not a breach of the license (it might be one, technically, in GPLv2). The GPL FAQ has been updated to cover the new changes." Commentary is available over at Linux.com (which is owned, along with Slashdot, by Sourceforge).
Yeah, but (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
[CARRIER LOST]
No, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
iRonic (Score:2, Insightful)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Thursday, June 28, 2007 -- On Friday, June 29, not everyone in the continental U.S. will be waiting in line to purchase a $500 (370) iPhone. In fact, hundreds of thousands of digital aficionados around the globe won't be standing in line at all, for June 29 marks the release of version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Version 2 of the GPL governs the world's largest body of free software -- software that is radically reshaping the industry and threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the iPhone. (...) The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated? Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work -- it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software." The GNU GPL version 3 will be released at 12:00pm (EDT) -- six hours before the release of the iPhone -- bringing to a close eighteen months of public outreach and comment, in revision of the world's most popular free software license.
Irony - I love it (Score:4, Interesting)
An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.
I think that says it all.
Re:Irony - I love it (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point the analogy to OSS breaks down, because in this case the predator is after the kill, not the meal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Glad I sat in line (Score:5, Funny)
It's been worth it. Now I have to print it out so I can fall asleep with it.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
gplv4.org
Registrar: Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Creation Date: 2005-12-14 16:52:22
OK, the first on this thread then.
I'm all for the emacs thing though.
tivoisation (Score:5, Interesting)
The irritating part is that the FSF has the business products exception, where Tivoisation is okay for hardware sold for business use. Stallman et. al. recognize that in some cases it's ultimately beneficial to the user to be unable to run modified software (e.g. a business that has to have accountability, or a console gamer who wants to know that no one is running a hacked game in multiplayer), but they think they can somehow figure out where that line is for everyone.
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then I wouldn't be able to run the FSF's software on any of it, by their design!
But, let's be realistic. It would be absolutely impossible to Tivoise all general-purpose computers. And it's not like you couldn't build your own.
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Informative)
That is exactly what the likes of Microsoft and Sony want to do for anything consumer-available.
They want to stop you from doing that too (or at least make it economically infeasible).
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Informative)
Allow me to make some introductions: Peter, meet BSD. BSD, meet Peter.
Oh yes, GPL3 anti-Tivoisation clause, meet irrelevance and backlash.
I suspect that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Quite a lot of open-source software (or at least user-written software) has been created in response to the encroachments of Digital Restrictions Management on the abilities of users to view the media which they have purchased in the false belief that such purchase entitles them to view where and when they like.
Requiring general-purpose consumer computer equipment to prevent code unsigned by the vendor from being run provides a number of benefits from the point of view of both the media cartel and large software companies:
Sony, in their position as a vendor of "trendy" hardware but also as a major stakeholder in the media market, is in the ideal position to introduce such a device, and I would expect them to do so within the next two years or so. Assuming Microsoft survives the damp squib that is Vista, I would expect the device to be announced jointly by the two players as a new "secure mobile computing platform" (not marketed as a "traditional" PC).
Software vendors would be able to acquire signing keys (relatively) easily, but they would not be available for operating systems and would likely require small per-user fees in order to squash out open source software. In addition, a Sword of Damocles contract would be required, whereby distributing software later found to be non-compliant with the terms of the signing key contract would result in all software signed with that vendor's key to be remotely deactivated.
Your mention of BSD is entirely irrelevant in the context of my GP comment, so (at the risk of being accused hypocritical) I respectfully suggest that you shut up and stop being a condescending moron.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't understand the significance of that then I invite you to a thought-experiment of what it would be like in a world where you can see the source, but not modify it, even though that right is guaranteed by the license of the software. Oh, and in regar
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet the FSF went to great lengths to permit it in some cases (the business use exception), recognizing that Tivoisation isn't a restriction on fundamental freedom, and in fact in many cases is beneficial to the user. That's why they have the convoluted definition of "consumer device" so that they can distinguish between consumer and business products - because lots of businesses have an interest in devices that will only run signed code. And I gave an example of where the consumer wants the same thing - games, where the user wants to know that everyone is running the same version in multiplayer. In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability. So even if we accept that there are cases where Tivoisation is bad, and that the FSF ought to try to prevent them, we're left with the fact that it can only do so with a broad brush, eliminating a lot of good uses along with a lot of bad ones. They're taking away as much freedom for the user (freedom to use GPLv3 on their trusted platform while maintaining that trust) as they're giving.
Re:tivoisation (Score:4, Interesting)
Surely having code signed by the owner achieves the same results in this case as having code signed by the vendor, assuming that the owner is not stupid enough to keep the private key for the signing process on the box which they are requiring to run signed code?
I challenge you to provide me with one example of a case where using the user's key to sign the code running on their box is inferior to the same box running the same software signed by a vendor key which the user does not have access to.
Re:tivoisation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus Christ, I've mentioned it twice already: networked multiplayer games. Because I can't run a modified executable on my machine, I can't cheat, and neither can anyone else.
Fair point. And although you might (probably should) agree that this is a pretty pathological example, I did only ask for one!
My response would be to ask whether a community so rife with anti-social behaviour is one which you want to be part of, but I suppose you've already answered that question too.
Re: (Score:2)
It is just a little bit hard, but no impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Rolling the dice' on the server for a large number of connections is more secure and correct, but can be sufficiently inefficient as to make games unplayable. When possible, technical decisions should be made on technical merits.
Re: (Score:2)
"I challenge you to provide me with one example of a case where using the user's key to sign the code running on their box is inferior to the same box running the same software signed by a vendor key which the user does not have access to."
Not that I actually want to jump into this debate, but I love a challenge, so:
The user is a casino, the box is a slot machine. If someone accuses them of cheating (which will happen), it is great for them if they never had any ability to modify the code in the first plac
Re: (Score:2)
The user is a casino, the box is a slot machine. If someone accuses them of cheating (which will happen), it is great for them if they never had any ability to modify the code in the first place.
There are such a thing as ROM chips, and there are such a thing as tamper-proof stickers. This is a good example of a situation in which both would be appropriate, and compatible with both the relevant legislation and the GPL v3 (neither vendor nor user has ability to change code after delivery).
Secondly, as you mention, both of the examples you give do not fall within the category of "consumer product" as defined by the GPL v3, and therefore the Tivoisation sections don't apply. I should probably hav
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't, as I'm not much of a gamer in any case. But some people apparently do want to be part of such a community. Do "consumer" users get the freedom to make that decision, like businesses do, or does the FSF make that decision for them? Business and gaming are two communities where it's nice to be able to give people more reason to trust you
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which to my mind makes whether or not you're allowed to restrict the user to running vendor-signed game binaries a rather moot point...
Slashdot's told me to "Slow down, cowboy!" so while waiting for the timer to run out I'll write this rather pointless line at the end of my post.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no expectation that a manufacturer make its hardware available for third party development.
Proprietary systems have there drawbacks, but they are a fact of life. If one has an issue with the fact that a given consumer
device is a closed platform, one ought not purchase the device. This ought to be how the issue of so-called Tivoization ought
to be decided, by making the business model non-viable
Re:tivoisation (Score:4, Insightful)
The clauses in the GPL v3 simply say: "If you use my software, for free, to create a device which you then sell back to me at a steep price, I'd better bloody well be able to put any further modifications I make to that software onto said device. Furthermore, because I think that's pretty neat, I'd like you to extend that ability to your other customers too. If you don't like it, write your own damn software."
I paraphrase and over-simplify, but the gist is there. It's not legislation, banning the practice generally. It's very specific.
You have an objection to this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Interesting)
Tivoisation prevents me from patching it. It prevents me from adding features. It prevents me from fixing bugs.
It's my software. I want to update it, and the only thing preventing that is licensing. That and a hardware based security system enforcing the licensing. When I wrote the software originally, I did not intend for products to be developed using my software that I could not update. In fact, I licensed my software in order to prevent that kind of a thing. Unfortunately, the PDA manufacturer found a loophole that stuck to the letter of my license, but not the spirit of it.
This is pretty much what Tivo did. The anti-Tivoisation language in the new GPL effectively closes that loophole.
Now, if Tivo wants to do the same thing in the future, they can either utilize software who's authors don't mind (and it's widely available for what Tivo wants to do), or they can contact the original author team for alternative licensing. In the case of large scale community projects where no such licensing option exists, they can either stick to the license or they can develop their own similar project in-house.
All the FSF is doing is ensuring that software licensees abide by the spirit of what the original authors intended. They recognized that business enterprises were taking advantage by using loopholes and they've attacked that problem - pretty effectively.
---
I can't think of a single instance where Tivo actually contributed code back to the community as you state.
Regardless, they are not without free options. All they need to do is shift to BSD licensed products - which they should have done in the first place given their long term strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that he meant that TiVo publishes the modifications it makes to the GPL-covered software, as required by the license.
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they should pick a software product based on a license that lets you do that. To oversimplify, but in a way that most people can grok, the BSD line maximizes the rights of the individual user(developer-sense) of software. The GPL has always been about maximizing the rights of the community, at the expense of what the user wants (to keep his changes secret, e.g.). GPL3 just clarifies some of the loopholes found in GPL2 that minimize community rights.
TiVo clearly takes rights away from the end-users of the hardware they've purchased, and this is contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, my Tivo is my computer. It's running in my house. It's connected to my network. I have a right to know what it'
To go with your analogy... (Score:2)
And if you don't like the fact that the good chef won't tell you what's in your dinner, then you have every right to leave a
Re:tivoisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is a poor analogy. In defense of Tivo, they are very good about complying with the letter of GPL v2 in that they distribute the sources to all of the GPL software that they use.
This explanation [slashdot.org] is much better, in my opinion.
Another way of looking at it is this (I don't have a Tivo, but hopefully my argument will make sense). Suppose you have a great idea for a way to improve the way the Tivo interface works for you, and you see that the modifications you need to make to the code which Tivo distribute to you are quite trivial. However, when you send the patch to Tivo they tell you they won't implement it because the business case doesn't support it -- you're the only one of their customers likely to use such a change. Then you're left hanging: as you mentioned, you own a more or less generic computing device and now you also have some code to run on said computing device, but you're at the whim of a third party (non-enforceable EULAs notwithstanding) as to whether or not you can put those two components together.
As many people have pointed out, the right to make modifications and improvements and to use said modifications and improvements is pretty fundamental to the whole point of Free Software, and that's exactly what Tivo have been trying to get around.
I agree that they need to be stopped, and I support the GPL v3 in its strategy to deal with this.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The other irritating part is that thi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Her's what you're missing: the GPL exists to benefit USERS , not developers! As it stands, the users of TiVos are being screwed because they can't actually modify the code that runs
MS SLES Coupons (Score:3, Insightful)
The way I read this, it's a pretty high-risk maneuver. They've essentially given Novell a free pass, hoping that they can undermine Microsoft with the SLES coupons thing. But if Microsoft can argue that they're not really distributing Linux by selling the coupons, then the whole thing, I think, unravels -- Novell gets a free pass for nothing and can continue on its merry way, remaining in the death-pact with Microsoft and using GPL3 code.
Given that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this, I think they must not see it as a big risk, and that to me isn't a good thing. It means they think they can avoid having their patents undermined, and if that's true, then excepting Novell will be for nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this is because if they gave any impression that this would be a major impact to their IP Licensing and bottom line, share holders will start to dump stock.
I'm not saying that
Re:MS SLES Coupons (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite a free pass. Notice that the grandfather clause only includes the bit about distributing GPLv3'd software while a party to such an agreement. It doesn't extend to failing to pass along any patent license (which includes things like covenants not to sue) or rights to pass along such a patent license in turn. So Novell can distribute GPLv3'd software because of the grandfather clause, but they can't distribute any of it subject to the agreement with MS without violating either the agreement or the software's license (license requires that they pass that coverage to all indirect recipients, agreement prohibits doing so).
"Getting in is easy. Getting out, that really isn't hard either. Getting out alive, that's the tricky part."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it really true that they're "distributing" Linux by selling the SLES coupons?
[...]
Given that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this, I think they must not see it as a big risk, and that to me isn't a good thing.
Well, to be honest, the whole Microsoft-saying-Linux-infringes-patents thing is FUD, and vice versa, the FSF-says-Microsoft-are-distributing-Linux thing is FUD as well. Both are dubious and the results of testing them in court would be very uncertain, as no precedent exists for either. Their purpose is basically to deter people from doing things (from using Linux or from suing Linux, respectively).
So, this basically seems like a 'fight fire with fire' tactic on the FSF's part. If it makes Microsoft even
Let the forking begin! (Score:2)
Why is this under "Linux" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this under "Linux" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This includes things extremely vital to running a Linux system, such as the gcc program.
Apache Licence (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Apache Licence (Score:5, Informative)
Also, from the Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 [fsf.org] document:
OpenSolaris (Score:4, Interesting)
If so, and the copyright holders for the parts of the Linux kernel of use to Sun are willing to license their code under GPLv3 as well, we may begin to see some major impacts on the open source OS landscape.
Fingers crossed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, OpenSolaris may use GPL3 for exactly that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, incorporating any of Linux into Solaris would probably mean instrumenting it and/or other non-trivi
Re:OpenSolaris (Score:5, Informative)
This is an urban myth. Linux can be relicensed at any time, with a simple legal process. It is not necessary to find all of the developers to get their permission.
How can the Linux kernel project, with its thousands of developers, ever change its license? We can't even reach them all, and some of those developers are dead and their estates don't know software licenses from driver's licenses. But changing the license is easier than most people think.
First, it's not a fundamental change: the intent of GPL 3 is that of GPL 2, the change is in the implementation. Given that, what would be required for such a change would be for Torvalds (or someone else) to publish his intent to start making releases with the new license, as a legal notice. A certain number of people would object, and they would have the right to require that their contributions be removed from the new release.
The kernel team has never been loath to replace code when necessary, and never slow to handle the job, no matter how large the item to be replaced. Just look at the replacement of Bitkeeper with "git", a big job that took a ground-up rewrite and yet was working in five weeks. So, code belonging to GPL3-objectors would be swiftly dealt with.
After some time passed, the release would happen under the new license, and life would go on. There is precedent for this, as Torvalds has already made two significant changes to the prelude to GPL2 on the kernel, publishing his intent and then making a release.
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because the license text is produced by the same organization, and some ot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Torvalds is not the copyright holder of the software released by other copyright holders under GPL2 without the "v2 or any later" clause (except portions of the software he wrote himself). Hence, if he ever attempts to release it under a different license (v3 or whatever) without the consent of the copyright holders, he immediatel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Solaris moves to GPLv3 while Linux is stuck with v2, Debian might adopt the Solaris kernel as their main kernel (after a long transition process), since it is more in line with their principles of creating a pure GNU system. And then, what will happen to the Debian derived systems (such as Ubuntu)? If Sun plays their cards right, they can effectively shift a big chunk of the Linux world to Solaris.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider this possibility:
If Solaris moves to GPLv3 while Linux is stuck with v2, Debian might adopt the Solaris kernel as their main kernel (after a long transition process), since it is more in line with their principles of creating a pure GNU system. And then, what will happen to the Debian derived systems (such as Ubuntu)? If Sun plays their cards right, they can effectively shift a big chunk of the Linux world to Solaris.
First, Debian already has multiple kernels (Linux and BSD). Second, sure, if OpenSolaris were as functional as Linux, and GPL3 to boot, it might be a nice replacement. However, at this point OpenSolaris is far behind Linux with regards to device drivers and other things. So, this won't happen in the near future. In fact, Nexenta are already basically doing what you suggested, with little popularity thus far (although it is an interesting project to watch).
Do what now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://web.sourceforge.com/news_archive/2007/1799. php [sourceforge.com]
VA Software Corporation (Nasdaq: LNUX), the online media and e-commerce leader in community-driven open source innovation, today announced it has changed its name to SourceForge, Inc. The change reflects the company's strategic focus on its network of Web properties following the disposition of its enterprise software business. The company's Nasdaq ticker symbol will remain the same.
Re: (Score:2)
note nice! (Score:3, Funny)
What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
Hey, that's not nice! Some pretty remarkable software has been written on T-Shirts that are much shorted than the GPL.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say the same about many larger pieces of software as well. GPLv2 and v3 are legal clubs you use to whack people over the head. They may not have rusty nails in them like a Microsoft EULA, but they are still clubs. If you have no intention of suing people over possible misuse of your code, then use an unres
Re: (Score:2)
Make it an ideology (Score:3, Interesting)
"The educational aspect of GPLv3 has, in my opinion, been the greatest success," he says.
I agree. The open source movement has always wanted a focal point, a figure like Mao or Roosevelt, who can champion its ideal and point out its obvious implications. It's slightly anarchistic. It's anti-ownership. It's Darwinistic (let the best code win). All that is now clear, and many people agree.
The real question to me, as an observer of "current history," is whether people will take this to logical conclusions outside the world of the net. Will the Wal-Marts burn, and Paris Hilton be forced to do her own laundry? Will the morons of the world be forced to dwell in antartica? Or will this be a pithy statement like those of forgotten rock stars, "changing the world" inside a few minds separated by vast spaces of time, distance, economic instability and doubt?
Holiness Unto the Prophet (Score:3, Funny)
There is no God but FOSS and Stallman is its Prophet. Peace be upon him. The writ of holy scripture GPL shall burn into the souls of the infidel. If they do not submit, as the Prophet, holiness is his name, to the will of God, then we will force governments to ban the infidels. We will use the holy war of antitrust on the infidel. God wills it, we are the followers of God and its Prophet, paradise awaits him.
There is not God but FOSS.
Stallman is its Prophet.
The Holy Writ of God is GPL.
Re:Holiness Unto the Prophet (Score:4, Funny)
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels. [stallman.org]
Sainthood in the Church of Emacs requires living a life of purity--but in the Church of Emacs, this does not require celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Being holy in our church means installing a wholly free operating system--GNU/Linux is a good choice--and not putting any non-free software on your computer. Join the Church of Emacs, and you too can be a saint!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Please, allow me to correct you, you apostate sectarian:
GNU/Sainthood in the GNU/Church of Emacs requires living a GNU/life of GNU/purity--but in the GNU/Church of Emacs, this does not require GNU/celibacy (a sigh of relief is heard). Being GNU/holy in our GNU/church means installing a wholly GNU/free GNU/operating GNU/system--GNU/Linux is a good choice--and not putting any non-free software on your computer. Join the GNU/Church of Emacs, and you too can be a GNU/saint!
The GNU/Holy Writ proclaims that you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HERESY!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By definition, there is only one thing for which there are no more important things in life. This may not be that thing (whatever it is), but it's still important - for many of us it has a significant impact on several facets of our professional lives.
(also, I'm pretty sure Stallman hasn't actually killed anyone)
Time for Sun to Shine (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody please join me in exhorting Jonathan to take the bungee jump.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not trolling but I'm genuinely curious at to what exactly you think would get interesting? Unless Linux is able to move to the GPLv3 as well, which is doubtful, I doubt much will change. Java and Solaris are already open source and it hasn't made much of a difference. Java on the desktop is still shunned and it will probably never be adopted significantly outside of enterprise data entry applications. In term
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the silence...
In Patent Absurdity, Stallman discusses the impact of software patents by using literary patents as an example. Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the issue of whether to allow patents covering software, so now is an especially important time to share information about their dangers. [fsf.org]
The Danger of Software Patents: This speech will be accessible to a [fsf.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, I don't think Linux can ever leave GPL2 - too many authors, known and unknown, insufficient licensing. So, now if we assume that GPL3 is a better GPL than GPL2, and will lead to more "Free" (adjective sense) software, what does a community that values freedom above other concerns do? One could argue that section
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Newsflash! Java is GPLv2; not CDDL. Research before posting. Thanks.
Botched Link (Score:2)
I updated to version 3 today (Score:4, Interesting)
I did not originally use the "or later version" verbage, and I decided not to this time, not that it matters: I write what could best be called "small market" OS projects
A bit off topic, but it continues to frustrate me that my customers don't take more advantage of the GPL. I have been an independent consultant for a decade, and I almost never get customers to support open source development. I went so far as to offer a 30% discount for work on GPLed projects - no bites, but lots of offers to work on proprietary systems. My take is that there is too much emphasis on protecting intellectual property and not enough on reducing costs and improving quality by building on top of existing GPLed projects. From my experience, and a bit of opinion thrown in: most value in intellectual property is in unique data sources and human knowledge. I would bet that most companies would do better on financial and quality metrics by having a few proprietary systems for specific data processing, application of unique algorithms, etc. - and use GPL (or Apache, BSD, etc.) for as much infrastructure software as possible.
In related news.. (Score:2)
Microsoft has nothing to fear (Score:2)
If Microsoft wants to engage other companies into Microsoft-Novel kind of deals in the future, all they have to do is give the patents to a proxy company that is not "in the business of distributing software", and the proxy company can do the deals for them. I don't think it would be hard for them to find the proxy patent troll for a reasonable fee.
The license leaves the door open not only for Microsoft proxies, it also leaves the door open to any patent
Re: (Score:2)
They already have one. It's called Intellectual Ventures, and is run by the former Microsoft manager Nathan Myhrvold.
Looks like they got the MS Lawyer (Score:2, Insightful)
I think if I put out free software, I'm going to put it into the public domain, and I would encourage people to do the same. The fixation on limiting other people's profits from your work because you choose to do so is absurd, and in the days where it only costs $20 a month to give away a fairly large amount of source code to a fairly large amount of people, the whole point of linking the publication of th
Re:is this the license that bans DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Farewell.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the world needs yet another open source license. In the world of Idealists someone needs to be pragmatic. Find an existing license that gives you 99% of what you want. You'll find that you don't need the other 1%.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sound familiar?
Re:To all those complainers (Score:4, Insightful)
How many [browser, window manager, package management system, text editor, torrent client, ftp client, full distro, etc.] do you need (choice wise) before you have 99% of what you need in what is available??
The answer is "one", unless the one that exists doesn't have what you need (security, stability, features etc).
There are, in the world of "open source" and "free software" already a myriad of licenses. I can name about 12 off the top of my head. Each, more or less, provides the use with free software that is community supported. Some licenses are really free (BSD), others not so (GPL3).
I can see the usefulness of most of these license and why someone would choose one or the other. Personally I'm a BSD style kind of guy, free is free is free. But I also understand the reasoning behind the likes of GPL3 and other restrictive licenses (ie control of the code and everything the code touches).
There is, however, a broad range of choices out there, all "free" or "open" licenses.
BTW, my opinion on GPL3 is the unintended consequences of GPL3 is going to be large fractures withing the Gnu/Linux/Gnome(KDE) environment, requiring seperated "distribution" channels. I can foresee the need for two or more install media to separate out what is GPL2, GPL3, and other licensed software, where one install media would do (RedHat GPL2 disk, RedHat GPL3 disk, RedHat Apache Disk etc). There is going to be a huge artificial wall of separation that is going to be problematic in the long term, mainly because it is not needed, or required by end users, but rather needed by licensing requirements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To all those complainers (Score:4, Informative)
The only problem with GPL 3 is that it is difficult to move software with a large number of compyright holders from 2 to 3, if the "and later versions" wording was not used to start with. This will mean that that will be some GPL software that can not be statically linked with other GPL software. A lot of what people want to link will be LGPLed or under BSD style licences, which will mitigate the problem.
One project that might hae a problem is KDE, Does anyone know if Qt going to use GPL3?
My head hurts too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about GPLv2 was that it was just about readable by the average human, written by people with fairly clear ideals wanting to get across a message. Now it's the culmination of special interests, reading like something designed by committee, dealing with such contemporary minutiae as to confuse anyone coming to Free software development after a few months from now, while completely turning off any of the "Just click Next until the damn software installs" crowd. GPLv3 will have nothing like the staying power of GPLv2.
Firstly, the Free Software movement has ballooned massively since 1991. It wasn't even a dot on the landscape back then. Now it's a movement whose ideals are sweeping the world, and have diversified into the arts, law, and legislation too. According to Eben Moglen at a recent talk in Edinburgh, over ten thousand people were directly involved in the process of designing the license. It was designed by a committee -- and a very large one!
Secondly, there are many parties who are desperately intent on f
Re: (Score:2)