First Draft of GPL Version 3 Released 575
njan writes "The first draft of version three of the GNU General Public License was released to the public this afternoon. Major improvements touted in version three include changes designed to mitigate the damage posed by new threats to free software such as software patents. One individual stated about the release: 'It is changes in law, not computer technology, that pose the principal challenges to the free software community. Chief among these changes has been the unwise and ill-considered application of patent law to software. Software patents threaten every free software project, just as they threaten proprietary software and custom software. Any program can be destroyed or crippled by a software patent belonging to someone who has no other connection to the program.'"
From this... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm reading this as (bold area): if I compile my code with GCC and link with a GNU library, my code will not fall under the GNU license unlese I sat it does.
Re:How much of this... (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, that sounds like a breathtakingly simple way to undermine the whole purpose of the DMCA and DRM, simply by saying: Software under this license can never be a protection device that people are not allowed to circumvent. Almost as simple and elegant as the idea of copyleft itself. I'm very impressed.
great; now GPL software is prohibited on Windows! (Score:0, Interesting)
So unless you can distribute the source code to Microsoft's DLLs you can't distribute binaries for GPL v3-licensed software running on Windows. Yeah, you can still distribute just the GPL v3-licensed source but realistically if users have to compile an app themselves the number of users will drop off dramatically.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Re:Other issues (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm glad they stepped off this one. The stuff I was reading at one time seemed quite a bit draconian about it and, to put it mildly, quite hypocritical when they say "free/open/libre" software but then "you can't use it".
Web services? (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't see any wording in the draft that addresses this issue either way; every time I thought I did, I found the same or similar wording in version 2. So, is it in there? Will it affect how we publish web applications?
Re:Other issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Other issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How much of this... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not. That would mean that any cryptographic software could never be GPL licensed. You won't have a Free implementation of the protocol used for you to connect securely to your bank, since it is illegal in many places to intercept and decrypt such privileged communications.
Relicense? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, should Linux become GPL3'd?
Discuss...
Re:Other issues (Score:2, Interesting)
This objective lawyer agrees with your initial impression. I searched to the section of the draft that expressed this issue, confident that because there were attorneys working on the draft, it couldn't possibly express this concept in the language that others have used in the comments. I was wrong:
Statutory definitions cannot be changed by contract. Period. If you and I sign a contract that defines our upcoming battle royale on the street in front of my house as a "sporting event", we can still assuredly be arrested for assault and battery upon each other (at the very least). This language expresses an objective that is analogous to that hypothetical.
Imagine this:
1. Programmer A writes software that would be an effective technological measure but for this clause.
2. Programmer A distributes said software in combination with Copyright Owner B's work under license (as if this wasn't uncommon) as Work Z. For the argument's sake, let's assume that the copyrighted work is stored in separate data files that are distributed with the object code, but not the source code.
3. Programmer C uses said software to access Work Z without 'permission'.
The license extends between Programmer A and Programmer C. The license does nothing to bind Copyright Owner B. Yet the language from sec 1201 of the DMCA (the anticircumvention provisions) states that the person that must give permission is the copyright owner.
This means that if I represent Copyright Owner B, I can sue Programmer B and any other unauthorized person who accesses Work Z using Programmer A's source, or a derivative work created from that source, even if Programmer A cannot. If you believe that Programmer A's implied-by-license permission is sufficient to protect a third party from a lawsuit, think again. The third party is the one violating the copyright by accessing the work without authorization, and by presumably making at least a transient copy of the copyrighted work. Any lawyer will tell you that Programmer A cannot sell/distribute/convey rights greater than the rights that have been granted to him/her, just like Programmer A cannot sell Copyright Owner B's house to Programmer C.
Oops.
read Karl Popper (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Web services? (Score:3, Interesting)
Crud. I think you're right. The FSF seems to have this fascination with "invariant sections", even though the rest of the planet thinks they are fundamentally non-Free [wikipedia.org].
If this draft is accepted, it looks like I'll be using GPLv2 (and v2 only) from now on. This whole thing reeks of second-system effect [wikipedia.org] and I'd rather not have anything to do with it.
Re:No more GPG encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
The R in DRM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No more GPG encryption (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How much of this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nope. In most countries at least, law trumps contract. What would happen is that the license is invalidated, and the software in no longer free.
As a commercial developer, I'm always unsure.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish authors releasing good libraries under GPL would also assume that is OK to make money with it too. Just spell out the terms and conditions for us commercial types too. Not all of what I do is commercial of course, some is free (as in beer) in which case GPL tends to be fine.
I hate being the kind of person who uses other people's contributions but can't contribute back all the time. I hope the new license clears some of this up for me.
Re:No more GPG encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Web services? (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine that this could apply to web services -- I could release my big PHP app under the GPL license with the added restriction that "if you want to distribute or modify my web app, you have to have some sort of link to the source code, or else you can't modify the part of the program that provides that link." This is allowed now, I can have any reasonable terms in my license that I want (my license is the only thing that lets you distribute or modify my code), but under versions of the GPL prior to 3, my code wouldn't be COMPATABLE with GPL code; you couldn't COMBINE my code with your GPL code.
If you do release your code under v3 of the GPL, then people can mix your code with my "GPL plus link to source"-licensed code. If you release your code under version 2 only, my code can't be mixed with yours.
I think this is a good solution to the "problem" of web services. Remember, the problem was that people can take my GPL'ed code, change it, and run it over the Internet and not release their changes back to the community. In some ways this goes against the spirit that the codes' authors may have felt -- they wanted changes to be "fed back" into the community. On the other hand it could be argued that, by adding a new restriction to my code that goes beyond the GPL's core "share back" -- I'm now in effect saying "this program MUST have this functionality" -- I'm limiting a freedom that the GPL wants to protect -- the freedom to modify the code.
I think section 7d is a brilliant compromise: allow such code to be mixed with GPL'ed code. This keeps the GPL pure, but opens the door to code that isn't philosophically objectionable.
It's a EULA (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem for Free Software purists is that it's a EULA: [itarchitectmag.com] It restricts use, not just copying. That seems to contradict the "not a contract" part of the GPL, and probably can't be enforced in many jurisidctions (although it is a way of fighting back against UCITA or similar laws / court decisions that make EULAs binding).
Re:Other issues (Score:3, Interesting)
As an example, here is 17 USC 1201(a)(2):
Since the the statute uses the word 'or,' a product that satisfies any one criterion is unlawful to traffic in; satisfaction of all three criteria is not required.
The main problem is (a)(2)(B). Just because there are lawful uses to which a circumvention product may be put (such as in conjunction with a GPL'ed work or public domain works) that still tends to leave it with a limited commercially significant use. The Reimerdes court considered whether DeCSS could be lawful to traffic in, given that it could be used not only unlawfully to circumvent DRM for copyrighted movies, but also lawfully to circumvent DRM for public domain movies. Nevertheless, this was not a significant enough use, and DeCSS was not saved.
Therefore, Alice can sue Carol successfully, because there are a lot of Alices, and few Bobs.
Friendly explanations are far more becoming. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lots of lawyers are wrong in their legal views and some of them even lose cases. Lots of basketball players who can perform slam dunks sometimes miss the basket and sometimes lose games. Being an expert doesn't mean you're above being questioned. But you apparently don't even like for people to question whether you're really a lawyer, so you post anonymously, giving us no information to determine if you're actually a lawyer as you claim to be.
Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF, is also a lawyer who has said repeatedly that "Licenses are not contracts [columbia.edu]". Perhaps you would take the matter up with him instead. After reading his essays and listening to his talks, I find him to be a far more patient and informative speaker than you appear to be. Then again, he might object to some anonymous nobody claiming to be a lawyer arguing a point with him that he's rehashed so many times.
Pamela Jones, a journalist with a paralegal background who runs Groklaw [groklaw.net], has gone on record saying that "The GPL is a license, not a contract [lwn.net]" in which she cites Moglen's essay and expands on it a bit. Perhaps you'd rather discuss the matter with her, since she too might be more on your level of expertise.
But I think it's telling that instead of patiently explaining the difference between the terms 'license' and 'contract' you instead chose to take a needlessly confrontational and remarkably uninformative route to point out that most non-lawyers don't understand the terms. It's unfortunate that the /. moderators don't seem to penalize such posts in an attempt to raise the level of discourse here.