GPL v3 Coming Out in 2007?

gentoo1337 writes "Eben Moglen of the FSF speaks out in this ZDNet article, noting that GPL v3 may be publicly drafted in early 2006, and in force one year later. The process is very sensitive (noting concerns of forking in the Linux world), but Eben Moglen is optimistic: 'When it's all over, people are going to say, "All that talking for just that much change?" [...] We will do no harm. If we think (some change) may have any unintended consequences, we will not recommend making it.' Controversies aside, there is some good news -- Richard Stallman aims to 'lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.' The earlier Slashdot discussion contains complementary info about the intentions of FSF."

Analysis Paralysis?

[bc90021]

Am I the only one who thinks it's going to take longer? Given the number of parties/factions involved (FSF, EFF, RedHat, Linus, ESR, etc.), I think it may take longer. I know that not all those people have to have the new GPL "cleared" with them, but I'm sure they'll all want to weigh in on the process, which will likely lengthen it.

Re:Version conflicts?

[sconeu]

Generally, if you look at license files, they say V2 of GPL *or later*.

The Linux kernel is a notable exception to this.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Ossifer]

So they have an implicit acceptance of whatever might go into to version n years from now?

Like "permission to use the author's power tools on odd weekends"? ;-)

Re:What the hell is taking so long

[rewt66]

Ever hear of "the law of unintended consequences"?

They're trying to not mess up all the ways that GPLed code is used. That's not easy, because it's used a lot of different ways. And, they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks. (Look at how GPL 2 stood up under SCO's attack, and you'll see what I mean.)

This isn't just "slap together a license, and we'll fix it next week if we don't get it right the first time". Since some some projects don't use the "or any later version" clause, some code will probably be licensed under GPL 3 forever. And seeing from here to forever is hard, even on a clear day...

Reasonable people...

[sploxx]

This all sounds very reasonable and careful. Why are the FSF people -esp. RMS- portrayed as being zealots here on /.?
Of course they have an agenda. They may be (described as) somewhat fundamentalistic. But it seems that they are still arguing in very reasonable ways.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Dogtanian]

I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3

"By redistributing this software, you accept that any violation of the terms of this license may result in you being pursued and shot by a rabid gun fiend with large number of firearms."

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[natrius]

Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.

Running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either, and that's what really matters here. The GPL doesn't go into effect until you try to make a copy of the software, and even when it's in effect, you only have to distribute the source code to the people you distribute binaries to. If you only distribute it internally, then it really doesn't make a difference. Technically, a new version of the GPL could say that you have to give a copy of the code to the FSF if you want to distribute binaries at all, even within your own organization, but I don't think many people would actually want to use that license.

Personally, I think that making internal changes and not sharing them with the world is against the spirit of the GPL. People gave their work to you for free, and you don't want to give your changes back as payback? That's pretty lame. However, I don't think there's any practical way for a new version of the GPL to prevent it. Smart people try to get their changes accepted upsteam anyway so they don't have to maintain patches and make sure they apply and don't introduce new bugs. It's just less work.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[znu]

This is such total nonsense. The BSD operating systems get plenty of community contributions. In some cases, BSD-licensed code is more likely to to spur contributions, because it can be used in more scenarios -- companies can use it with no worries about code contamination, for instance, and while they don't have to contribute back to the community, in many cases they will, because it's still in their own best interests.

If they contribute their changes back to the main trunk, they'll (probably) be able benefit from future versions of the software without having to merge their changes back in with every update. If they keep their changes private, they're effectively forking the software, and most organizations don't have the resources to maintain their own forks of major projects.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Mr2001]

Free software [development] does not appear to have any viable method of recouping development costs (particularly initial development costs).

Sure it does: if you want a particular feature developed, hire some programmers to write the necessary code. You just have to realize programmers are providing a service, rather than manufacturing a good.

Re:Fonts

[multipartmixed]

That font argument is entertaining.

What I use GNU bc to calculate some numbers, which I then embed in a proprietary application.

Is my application now "tainted"?

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Kremmy]

The GPL does not contain any restriction that keeps you from selling a piece of software for a huge profit. It merely makes you give source code access to those who you sell it to.