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).
Re:Yea-eah! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do what now? (Score:3, Informative)
http://web.sourceforge.com/news_archive/2007/1799
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:Apache Licence (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Apache Licence (Score:5, Informative)
Also, from the Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3 [fsf.org] document:
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:iRonic (Score:3, Informative)
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:tivoisation (Score:3, Informative)
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: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:Yeah, but (Score:1, Informative)
Seriously.
You brought it up.
Re:Time for Sun to Shine (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 all audiences and the public is encouraged to attend. Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development. [fsf.org]
It is difficult to find organizations that officially speak up against software patents. There are many that should do so but are under the control of large corporations.: The Free Software Foundation and its European arm are clearly against software patents [nosoftwarepatents.com]
Saving Europe from Software Patents: Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued. [paradoxical.co.uk]
FSF Europe: No software patents in Europe [fsfeurope.org]
Richard M Stallman: Software Patents- Dangers to development [gnu.org]
GPL: Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free. [gnu.org]
Does GPLv3 have a "patent retaliation clause"?In effect, yes. Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it. [gnu.org]
FSF annual members meeting: "As we expected, 2006 is proving to be a pivotal year for the Free Software Movement. With the release of the GPLv3, we have brought to focus the debate on the threats posed by Digital Restrictions Management, Software Patents and Treacherous Computing. [fsf.org]
FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3: But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing [fsf.org]
Boycott Amazon!: The boycott can also indirectly help change patent law--by calling attention to the issue and spreading demand for change [gnu.org]
Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together: Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project. [gnu.org]
Software Patents and Literary Patents: On July 6, 2005, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software--a policy that would restrict every computer user, and tie software developers [gnu.org]
Re:OpenSolaris (Score:3, Informative)
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:Time for Sun to Shine (Score:3, Informative)
Newsflash! Java is GPLv2; not CDDL. Research before posting. Thanks.
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?
Re:OpenSolaris (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 immediately violates copyright law (remember, he's not the copyright holder and only the copyright holder can change the license terms).