GPLv3 Released

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).

iRonic

[vigmeister]

That it should be released on the same day as a device that teased otherwise, but was virtually closed to 3rd party development.
Cheers!

MS SLES Coupons

[Kadin2048]

Is it really true that they're "distributing" Linux by selling the SLES coupons?

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.

Why is this under "Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is under the GPL v2, not v3.

Re:is this the license that bans DRM?

[Spy der Mann]

Well, that's too bad for you. See, what you view as "the real world" will soon become "the corporation-dominated world". But we'll live in whatever's left of the free world.

Farewell.

Re:tivoisation

[zellyn]

That's fine if it were just Tivos. However, what would happen if every piece of hardware you bought was Tivoised? Only properly signed binaries would run at all. I can think of several companies that would love that situation.

Re:tivoisation

[UtucXul]

I don't see the benefit in forcing them to open up their hardware just because they want to use GPLv3 software on it.

No one is asking them to open up their hardware. As far as I'm concerned they can do anything they want with their hardware. The problem is that they want to lock MY hardware and won't give me the key. I purchased a series 2 TiVo. I understand that software has licenses so I don't own the software when I buy it in a way. But the TiVo box is a physical item that I gave a store money for. The only owner of that box sitting under my TV is me (and I guess my wife).

Re:tivoisation

[Anonymous Coward]

The spirit of the GPL is that of freedom for the user. Tivoisation, the restriction of actually modifying the code on the hardware, was an unforeseen issue when GPLv2 (which guarantees that right) was written and thusly had to be corrected in GPLv3.

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 regard to your comment of using the code on similar hardware. What if said hardware was proprietary and only available through the systems provider? What then?

As an aside, where does it state that GPL licensed software must "give back?" As I read it, it merely states that you must pass on the code and the same rights to your clients. If the clients are public, "at large" then I can understand the concept that the source is released publicly and considered to be giving back. But, this concept of upstream patches that is constantly heralded on Slashdot I just don't understand. Who is espousing this misinformation? Heck, even the concept of forking would be moot if upstream patches were mandatory.

Re:OpenSolaris

[gowen]

Linux relicensing won't happen. It pretty much can't happen. Any contributor to any file that does not have "or later version" (and there are many) in the license would have to sign off on the change. Some of them are dead, so you'd probably have to track down their descendants / executors.

Of course, OpenSolaris may use GPL3 for exactly that reason.

Re:Irony - I love it

[dpilot]

But it's only effective for your relatives. Maybe you've been spit out, but you're still dead.

At this point the analogy to OSS breaks down, because in this case the predator is after the kill, not the meal.

Re:note nice!

[Brandybuck]

Then release them under a simple all-permissive license! Think about it. Don't put it under the GPLv3 if you're not planning on suing the shit out of people who "exploit" the code on the tee-shirt.

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 unrestricted license.

Re:tivoisation

[bill_mcgonigle]

For most devices like this, it's important to the proper functioning of the network for the servers to be able to trust the clients, and so there have to be limitations to the software you can run on that device.

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:MS SLES Coupons

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

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 GPL3 is a huge hole is MS core business, just that IF IT WAS, they'd sure as hell wouldn't scream about anything if they were in a tight spot, drawing attention to themselves during a bad time.

Re:tivoisation

[TrueJim]

It's like a restaurant chef refusing to tell you what's in your dinner. Sure, it's the chef's recipe...but it's your dinner. You're the one about to put the mystery food into your belly. You have a right to know what's going to go into your stomach. That doesn't mean you intend to steal the chef's recipe, but daggumit...it's your stomach! You have a right to know what's going in'it!

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's doing. Would you be as forgiving of a builder who wouldn't let you keep a copy of the plans to your house? Would you tolerate a car dealer who's welded your hood shut? It's your house. It's your car. You have a right to know where the plumbing goes. You have a right to look at the engine.

I'm not saying I entirely agree with this philosophy...but I fully understand it's impetus. GPL aside, how do you balance the chef's right to keep his recipe a trade secret, against the diner's right to know what's a'goin' into his own belly? It's a thorny question. Anybody who claims the answer is "obvious" isn't giving due consideration to the counter-arguments. Both sides have a valid point.

In the case of Tivo, the chef is saying, "You won't eat without knowing my recipe? Well, I guess you'll have to go to a different restaurant!" The diner is saying, "But we had a deal...you built your recipe on mine." In this case, I have to side with the diner. We had a deal. Tivoisation is wrong.

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

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's doing. Would you be as forgiving of a builder who wouldn't let you keep a copy of the plans to your house? Would you tolerate a car dealer who's welded your hood shut? It's your house. It's your car. You have a right to know where the plumbing goes. You have a right to look at the engine.

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:tivoisation

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Re:Holiness Unto the Prophet

[glwtta]

Stop and say to yourself people. It is only a license. There are more important things in life.

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)

Re:To all those complainers

[BrianGKUAC]

Because the world needs yet another open source [browser, window manager, package management system, text editor, torrent client, ftp client, full distro, etc.] . In the world of Idealists someone needs to be pragmatic. Find an existing [browser, window manager, package management system, text editor, torrent client, ftp client, full distro, etc.] that gives you 99% of what you want. You'll find that you don't need the other 1%.

Sound familiar?

Re:tivoisation

[PeterBrett]

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 for the company, not some poorly constructed, arbitrarily defined licensing scheme that restricts only the freedom of some, and not all. The fact that there is a "commercial device" exception indicates that the case for so-called Tivoization has a valid application and should therefore be allowed. Banning the practice for "consumer devices" is simply an arbitrary confinement of freedom that is a slippery slope.

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:tivoisation

[mrchaotica]

I don't understand the furor over Tivoisation, and think it's a really bad move on the FSF's part to ban it. In all the other articles I've seen tons of comments along the lines of "well if Tivo doesn't want to give back, then they can't use my code!" The thing is, Tivo does give back - they contribute any source code they add.

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 on their own devices. The GPLv3 is designed to fix that.

If this still doesn't make sense, remember that the incident that incited RMS to start all this was that some company refused to give him the source code for the driver for his printer (it had a bug that he wanted to fix). The GPL exists to fix that problem. Sure, RMS could have just gotten a different printer, but that wasn't the point.

Re:To all those complainers

[Archangel Michael]

Yes.

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.

Looks like they got the MS Lawyer

[tjstork]

I have to admit that I am more than a bit put off by the excessive wording and length of this license.

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 the source with the distribution of a derived work is largely obsolete.

The GPL is starting to shape up as something that redistributes rights more than actually creates new ones. Software developers publishing under the GPL essentially have to waive their patent rights, waive their copyrights, so that consumers will benefit from software. Seriously, why do you care if someone gets rich off of what you wrote for free? Honestly, I'd almost rather have that, knowing that what I did made someone something, rather than none at all. Somebody else's profits do not block you from anything, and trying to make other people not earn money and not close software seems more jealousy than any practical social concern.

The absolute freest you can make your software is public domain, because public domain doesn't take away someone else's right to do something with it, and the GPL does.

Re:tivoisation

[jythie]

The problem with this type of argument is you are having to force your technical design based off idealogical legal requirements.

'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:tivoisation

[rockhome]

First, the relevant text :

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 of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.

"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.

Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.

I have a problem with this for multiple reasons. First, the license makes a clear distinction between products for a home and a business. If freedom is the essence of the GPL, this clause is the antithesis of that. By making the distinction, since the specification of a user product provides a way to classify a non-user product, the license admits that practice is a valid one. If the practice has some validity, then the license should err on the side of more freedom by allowing the practice generally, or the license should not allow for the practice at all. Again, the GPL is aimed at freedom, and this freedom ought to extend to all users, as has been its application. The cost of "tivoization" needs to be considered as a by product of freedom. By not applying the freedom equally and targetting one behavior while simultaneous admitting that a similar behavior is within the bounds of the license, the FSF is no longer supporting true freedom.

My second issue regarding the anti-tivoization clause is simply that there has been no sufficient argument made that the practice actually harms anyone. With the source available, users are free to build there own versions that are not closed and will run any arbitrary code.

With no proof of real harm, and a license clause that contradicts the aims of RMS and

Re:To all those complainers

[zsau]

Real question is, how many proprietary software licences are there? Just about every proprietary software producer has at least one...

Re:tivoisation

[fferreres]

Linus comment is that that is a great goal, but goes beyond the scope of a software license. I mean, If we are unable to obtain uncloked hardware, Linux can't stop that from happening. We will only make sure that ALL efforts for software-specific hardware become closed NOT open source. We lose all the efforts and insights, and the propietary vendors win. Would you contribute to a project that instead of the effort put into enhancing the code, wanted to limit your legitimate ability from doing usefull solutions? Would you prefer TIVO used closed software? What's the benefit from a developers perspective? Because from an end user perspective, TIVO will go propietary and you'll lose that right.

And open hardware solutions will be harder or impossible to obtain, and even worst, most technological advances in the field of PRV will go closed platforms. With TIVOs allowed to lock down HARDWARE, you get to enable competitors to use TIVOs code to make open SOLUTIONS more likely to success (after all, they have all the software they need, and only need to make it work on non locked hardware).

Now the community is divided. You have better patent coverage + nasty limitations that involve which hardware can be used with GPL software, or you have a more fair and intelligent license like GPL v2 but that is not great for dealing with patent bombs.

For the record, I predict that GPL v4 will get rid of the stupid anti-tivoization elements, and keep the patent protections in place, and that Linux will migrate to GPL v4 by that time.

Federico

Re:Time for Sun to Shine

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

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 3 of the DFSG is biased towards a GPL3 kernel over a GPL2 kernel. NexentaOS has already shown that Debian (Ubuntu) on OpenSolaris can be done technically.

Java and Solaris are already open source and it hasn't made much of a difference.

But not with a popular license. I'm not interested in hacking on a CDDL-licensed Java. A GPL3'ed Java, yes.

Java on the desktop is still shunned and it will probably never be adopted significantly outside of enterprise data entry applications.

Because of bigotry or technical failings? Having a developer-friendly license can help with at least the latter.

In terms of web applications, there are a plethora of web frameworks that are written in other languages that people seem to be adopting and migrating to. Java, to some degree, is also still tied down to the archaic processes that exist at the JCP. From what I've seen, people seem to be moving away from Java if anything.

Anecdotally, I've seen the opposite, but regardless it's not going away in the web space. It's also really picking up momentum in the embedded space. I'm using it for a project I'm doing, and I've seen more new J2ME apps for my Palm (Google, Opera, etc.) in the past 6 months than in the past 6 years.

In terms of Solaris, while it might be a great operating system, for most use cases it doesn't really offer much incentive to switch away from Linux or one of the various BSDs. The main reason people are excited about it possibly being released under the GPLv3, is because Linus has publicly stated that if that happens he might attempt to push the Linux kernel to the GPLv3. This is simply because people want to see ZFS and dtrace in Linux. From my experience, most people don't seem to care what happens on the Solaris side of the fence.

So, there's the issue of if GPL2 and GPL3 can be made compatible. RMS thinks they can't. I think that stands on his arbitrary line for linking, and that there's room for debate. Sun, at least, thinks drivers can move from linux to Solaris.

I agree, the OpenSolaris userland isn't all that interesting, but the kernel is pretty good, better than Linux in some cases.

The main reason I write this is because I know a lot of Sun supporters that seem to think that if Solaris and Java are released under GPLv3 that there will be a significant adoption of the two technologies.

Here's one Sun-hater who thinks that could happen.

I just don't see it happening. It didn't happen when they were released under other open source licenses and I can't see it happening if they're released under the GPLv3. What exactly does the GPLv3 offer that makes people think it will be any different?

Freedom. That may not be significant enough to motivate you, but don't discount its power in the hacker community. The GPL has its detractors, but there's real evidence that many coders are inspired by it.