FSF Releases Fourth and Final Draft of GPLv3 237
An anonymous reader writes "The most notable changes found in this latest draft include making GPLv3 compatible with version 2.0 of the Apache license, ensuring that distributors who make discriminatory patent deals after March 28 may not convey software under GPLv3, adding terms to clarify how users can contract for private modification of free software or for a data center to run it for them, and replacing the previous reference to a U.S. consumer protection statute with explicit criteria for greater clarity outside the United States.
The draft also does not prohibit Novell from distributing software under GPLv3 'because the patent protection they arranged with Microsoft last November can be turned against Microsoft to the community's benefit,' FSF executive director Peter Brown said."
Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war (Score:5, Insightful)
Bleh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war (Score:4, Insightful)
How to scare away business (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent thing is going to backfire big time. It's going to scare away businesses who would either stand to lose huge amounts of money or because they're unsure about whether it would invalidate patents they already have (what if the software is designed specifically to perform a piece of CAM in a way that's patented? Would that patent become invalid because of this licence? Would patented business practices that use OSS be threatened? Why risk losing millions in licence fees when you could spend a few hundred thousand and fit your systems with software you know doesn't rob you these rights?
For a licence that was supposed to be simple and easy to understand, section 11 makes for a hard read, even for geeks and I imagine lawyers will love the the potential vague nature of those terms. God knows what a layperson would think when reading it.
Re:Yay freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of expression does not extend to harassment of minorities.
Freedom of movement does not extend to other people's bathrooms.
Freedom of software does not extend to patent ambushes.
Microsoft is cynically exploiting fear of patent infringement to ambush the work done by millions. This is no "pissing war", it is a fight for survival, at least a fight for survival according to the old rules. If Microsoft were respecting the free software community, or even just ignoring it, that'd be fine. But what it's doing is saying, "nice business you have here, Guv, pity you've gone and installed that free stuff everywhere, cause it infringes on our [unspecified] patents, and it'd be a real shame to see a lawsuit happen here..."
Linux is now mainstream, and Microsoft wants to own it. That is what is going on here.
Re:A wake up call (Score:3, Insightful)
"Infecting patent deals"?
Who's bitch are you, exactly?
Re:A wake up call (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, GPLv3 is exactly the opposite, the first draft was reviewed, and heavily critized, and the critics was HEARD and actually CONSIDERED. This is HOW YOU AVOID a fiasco, are you listening?
This process is what a consensus is made of, how a process would applied in other areas of social life like politics would be a true remedy. The fact GPL goes into v3 is that it is evolutionary, and alive.
I use (Free)BSD a lot, and I like its license, but it has no potential to change, it's set, because it gives the most freedom. GPL limits the freedom by forcing you to act alike as you received the freedom, pass-it-on - nice too, and I find it even more nice to see such vivid interest in v3 of GPL, going into the details where freedom is limited and how and how to prevent within the license, this license lives from the update, from the learning, from the input of many.
Wake up!
PS: I'm AC because I hardly post on
Re:Bleh (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the people writing the GPL3 are mostly lawyers, no, they don't.
And they can leave the Software writing to us Programmers, thank you.
getting to the end (Score:3, Insightful)
One practical issue: it will be nice if somebody (Debian?) could write a script that makes it easy to scan source hierarchies for GPLv2 comments so they can be replaced consistently with GPLv3. The last time the FSF changed its address, it was a pain to check and change all the boilerplates.
Re:A wake up call (Score:5, Insightful)
They cannot retroactively add restrictions on their software. It is released under the license it is released under. On the other hand, the usual "GPL v2 or later" wording of the license allows you to adopt later changes should you wish to.
In this case it has mutated to infect unrelated areas of business after entering the host.
No one who is currently using GPLv2 software will see this mutation that you speak of - unless they choose to. People who start to use GPLv3 software will have it marked as GPLv3 when they introduce it so the mutation effect seems somewhat fictional.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the above is a call for anarchy, then that is exactly what you have to do. This happens to be why we have developed a system of ethics, so that we can judge "good" and "bad" behaviour in a sensible manner.
I don't particularly want anyone to have the freedom to enslave me, so I will tend to campaign to remove the freedom to enslave people. Many people seem to think like me and so, in a largely democratic society, that's the way we tend to go.
If you don't like it, get into politics
Re:Bleh (Score:3, Insightful)
In a politics-free world, there wouldn't be any licenses because there would be no copyright law to make them enforcable.
Which, of course, boils down to a BSD-like situation except it's unclear how much more secrecy this would lead to. I'm guessing not much.
Re:Don't like GPLv3? Run MSFT software. (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
What they DON'T stop is someone without ties to GPLv3 code taking patents and launching an attack. I always thought that IF such an attack would come (at least on a large scale), it would be far more likely to come from someone like Microsoft who would be untouched by any GPLv3 conditions. Small scale bullying might (and in some cases apparently has already) take place, but a large scale "destroy the free software ecosystem" attack I always thought was more likely from someone who had no financial incentive to see free software exist. After all, even patent trolls need someone to attack, and if they kill the free software world there will be nothing left for them to prey on except people who can afford lawyers to fight back. Admittedly they would survive, but I doubt they would be institutionally committed to the destruction of free software.
I admit it might make a repeat of the SCO fiasco with patent claims instead of contract and copyright laws somewhat less likely, and that's beyond question a good thing, but it doesn't reduce the large scale threat in any important way I can see. It's still a patent version of the MAD directive that's holding things in check, and (like the real Cold War) if anyone starts shooting the whole works (commercial AND open source) could go down the drain (in the US at least, and I am regrettably certain at least a few large corporate interests and US lawmakers will do their best to make the consequences felt elsewhere, if only to avoid competition getting an edge by not having to fork over for lawyers to fight patent issues.
What we REALLY need is software patent DISARMAMENT. Reform. What have you. I don't doubt ingenious folk in the commercial world will look for some other way to achieve the same end (as some insightful person said - "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing") but at least this particular gambit will be over.
The ideal case from our side would be to have protection for software that is given away at no cost (with source code) to the benefit of society. Of course the whole "limited monopoly to promote innovation that is publicly disclosed" bit would need to be debated, but at least we would be HAVING the debate. Software patents are just a manifestation of one view of how society should function. There are other views, and I would much prefer to see the debate take place on a societal level in a serious way than to drain the industry's resources fighting legal skirmishes. Life is too short for that, and there's too much code to write.
Re:Yay freedom! (Score:1, Insightful)
Except when it isn't. The problem with freedom is it's an inane word with very little meaning. Ultimately we look to it as an ideal rather than as a goal, because it's very difficult to give everyone absolute freedom when one person can use their's to oppress another, removing the freedom from that second group. Perhaps in a hundred years, when we all have virtual reality, we can have "absolute freedom" within that, with everyone free to do whatever they want to their own words without impacting on anyone else's, but until then others have the right to consider curtailing your freedom the moment your actions involve anyone else.
Also, I love your 100 years in the future time frame for achieving some promised land of absolute freedom. I suppose until then, we can have the FSF be the dictatorship of the proletariat to safeguard the revolution.
Freedom of expression is an inalienable right, meaning it is immoral to suppress it by force. To protect one groups right to free expression by limiting free expression is a contradiction.
Freedom of movement is bound by common sense rules. Your freedom to flail your arms about ends where my body begins. Even more basically, your freedom of movement is bound by physics. Your body cannot occupy the same space as other solids. Thus, despite your inherent right to freedom of movement, you cannot walk thru walls. Now, just because your freedom of movement is limited by either common sense or the laws of physics doesn't mean you can turn around and say, "see? freedom is meaningless".
Basically, I am very suspicious of anyone that wants to protect my freedom by limiting it. When you then justify the limitation by saying it doesn't really exist or is meaningless, I'm going to be downright scornful.
That pessimism isn't justified (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see the justification for that sort of pessimism. Of course they'll fight back as we continue to eat their lunch. That doesn't mean we haven't eaten anything or that we should stop eating now.
Re:Yay freedom! (Score:3, Insightful)
The FSF's view is that locking software away to prevent users from modifying it is a harmful, unethical practice. They, and everyone who uses the GPL, believe it is better not to help people who want to lock their code away. The idea is to encourage more people to contribute to the library of free software by enticing them with the right to reuse some GPL code. This goal is more important than preserving the ethically questionable "freedom" to use software in a way that's harmful.
Re:A wake up call (Score:3, Insightful)
MS EULA => Sharing is stealing.
BSD => Sharing is not stealing.
GPL => Not sharing is stealing.
The GPL protects freedom for users in the future by limiting certain actions which are deemed harmful to freedom now.
In a society where the ownership of slaves is permitted, you might think a person has more freedom than in a society where owning slaves is not permitted. However, it's more likely in the former society, especially if slavery is practised actively and widely, that the average level of freedom will be lower, since a slave has considerably less freedom than a person who has only been banned from owning slaves.
IMHO it is worth giving up the right to own slaves (or the right to make software non-free) in order to protect the rights of those who might otherwise be enslaved (or made to rely on non-free software). The BSD licence unfortunately does not preserve Freedoms One and Three, since it does not ensure continued access to Source Code. Note that a successful decompiler, if it existed, would enable the Taking by Force of Freedoms One and Three, as Freedoms Zero and Two can be taken by Force today.
Seriously, what is wrong with you people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second off... the FSF/GNU folks are usually pretty easy-going when it comes to relicensing software for other people to use, if they have a good reason to. There are a number of projects that have given out GPL'd code under a different license for compatability reasons.
Ever try to get somebody from Apache project to relicense code for you? IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They are much more hardcore, beuracratic, and nasty about this then the GNU folks.
It's like your seeing the world inside-out or something.
Your taking a person like RMS whose primary purpose in life, something he has devoted pretty much every minute of his waking life, is for the freedom of software users everywere. And you act like it's HIM that wants to control YOU.
It's so much bullshit that it makes me want to puke, get your head out of your ass.
Not everybody wants to devote their lives to making software that you can turn around and use to extract fees from the clueless masses. The GPL is about liberation, moving away from restrictive software licenses, not about making other people rich.
Re:attack of the centralized anarchist Linux cult (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not Bezroukov, but thanks for that link. Interesting thoughts.
Its not a Microsoft-Linux war.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Key event in the Microsoft-Linux war (Score:3, Insightful)
I may be slow, but I don't get your first point. How does my clicking "I agree" to a Windows EULA equate to my becoming "a party to an arrangement with a third party ... under which [I] make payment ... based on the extent of [my] activity of conveying [a GPL-covered] work"? In other words, while the Microsoft EULA is certainly discriminatory for distribution of the Microsoft software, it has nothing to do with distribution of GPL-ed software, so I don't see why it could or should have any impact on distributors of GPL-ed software.
Your second point, about OEMs, seems solid though. (That may, of course be an outcome precisely intended by those writing GPLv3.)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)