"The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released on 2006 July 27, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License." Included are audio introductions by Eben Moglen. Update: Torvalds, after looking at the draft, wasn't impressed.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-10-09
Or is the GPL getting to the point of being unwieldy by "normal" people? It's kinda like the constitution here in the USA. Started off great, very simple, very clear. Served it's purpose. Then idealists/extremists/whatever got their hands on it, and now through a gazillion amendments/other laws/etc we've got a tangled web that even some of the best lawyers have a hard time dealing with.
To me, the GPL has gone that route. Due to the nasty legal environment, it may be, but regardless of the reason - I would *not* feel safe reading that myself, I would *have* to have a lawyer go through it. All these clauses restricting that or this (DRM clause) etc, it's a big mess. It's looking more like an RMS-nutjob type production now. Soon there will be clauses you can't use GPL software without praying to the GPL gods twice daily and becoming vegan, as well as never touching the keyboard of a machine which has commercial/non GPL software on it.
Sorry, but I'm with Torvalds (although for different reasons) - NOT impressive. Get back to the basics, simplify the GPL, don't over-complicate it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Indeed. The existing GPL is hard enough to understand as it is, and thanks to how the law works, just because the license says one thing doesn't mean much -- since if the person that holds the copyright on the code under the GPL license interprets a particular section differently than you, their interpretation usually holds as the valid one (in US courts).
Member since:2006-01-19
Member since:2005-12-31
Wow, you are at your best again...
Moulinneuf, the essence of Free Software is Free Software, not the GPL. The GPL is only a means to an end. This end is to publish free software with a restriction that eventually forces other projects to become free software too, or not use the original code (this sounds a bit negative, but was meant in a neutral way). An overly complex license defeats this purpose. Programmers are usually not lawyers, and tend to choose lincenses they understand, for the good reason of not trapping themselves.
Member since:2005-08-28
Why can't the GPL manage to simultaneously be in understandable language, and legally binding? Must we go to legalese to specify our meanings clearly?
As for DRM, well, I think both RMS and Torvalds realize what's coming with the DRM wars in the United States... you know, DRM becoming a mandatory security feature... RMS wants to combat that by preventing that law from happening; Torvalds doesn't want to confine his OS to an illegal fringe by refusing to ever include it. In a perfect world, RMS's idea is better.
Besides, DRM/Trusted Computing DOES have some good uses (I seem to recall the presentations linked to on OSNews about why this is a good idea), it's just that we all know corporations don't want to use DRM for any of those reasons. They want to do it to protect themselves from the big bad consumers who might... you know... want to USE their computers in ways the corporations might not like...
Member since:2005-07-21
Member since:2005-07-06
Or is the GPL getting to the point of being unwieldy by "normal" people? It's kinda like the constitution here in the USA. Started off great, very simple, very clear. Served it's purpose. Then idealists/extremists/whatever got their hands on it, and now through a gazillion amendments/other laws/etc we've got a tangled web that even some of the best lawyers have a hard time dealing with.
You mean the Bill of Rights (amendments 1 through 10) for example? Yeah those damn extremist free-speech weirdo's and their amendments. I'm sure the GPL can be improved in some areas, as the US constitution could too.
Member since:2006-01-19
Maybe I am alone here, but even as a none-native speaker of the american language I had no more trouble understanding the latest draft of the GPLv3 than I had with the GPLv2. And I might add, that I am not a lawyer.
If you do not understand the GPLv3, read the preamble and act like any decent human being would act. Then you have absolutely no chance of violating the GPL, no matter what version.
It is only in the borderline cases where companies want to use GPLed Software, but not want to give away their added code, when there were some gray areas. These areas have now been squeezed to a very thin line.
And as a usual user who does not modify anything you would be hard pressed to find a way how to violate the GPL.
Member since:2006-07-01
'Served it's purpose. Then idealists/extremists/whatever got their hands on it, and now through a gazillion amendments/other laws/etc we've got a tangled web that even some of the best lawyers have a hard time dealing with. "
"All these clauses restricting that or this (DRM clause) etc, it's a big mess. It's looking more like an RMS-nutjob type production now. Soon there will be clauses you can't use GPL software without praying to the GPL gods twice daily and becoming vegan, as well as never touching the keyboard of a machine which has commercial/non GPL software on it. "
yea ... i can understand why a person who uses such kind of language wont be able to understand it ..
well ... as far as i can read ... the changes are very explicit if a person bothers to spend a few mins ...
1)the so called anti-drm clause .. the license states ... "For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish." .. cant manage to understand that ..?
2) "Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission provided you know that, and inform other peers where, the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d." .. plus some more options have been added so that the developers can separately provide the source code ... with less trouble ..
3)"When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. Some additional permissions require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work." ... so practically you cant add any requirements which will restrict the freedom of the user ...like "not for commercial use" .. only a few additional requirements within certain limits may be added ..(those limits are described in the license) ...
but they are not relevant for the majority of the people ...
but that has also allowed a lot of other licenses (such as the apache license) to become compatible with the gpl ...
4) if you hold patents regarding anything in your software ... you cannot sue the users ..or charge them loyalty for propogating modified versions further.
To be honest .. if you have read the license you would have realized that it makes it much simpler for the developers ...
a)now we have more options for making the sourcecode available ..
b)additional licences are compatible .. and we wont have to worry about having any additional requirements like "no commercial use" .. etc ..
c) wont have to worry about patents when ditributing modified versions of software .. and reusing components ....
as far as i can see the gpl3 is more simpler and developer friendly! .. though i am sure you posted that comment without even having a look at the text .. next time .. do so
Member since:2005-10-09
My apologies for my language, sorry for my lack of verbosity, which you seem extremely drawn to, sorry for all that bothers you about my post.
Thank you for the insult, I do appreciate it, you are quite obviously superior in terms of intellect.
You seem to still have managed to miss my point. It's not that I can't "understand" it, I do "understand" what the license is *attempting* to stipulate. However, it is so wordy and complex now, I would *need* a lawyer in order to use this license and be sure I understood the ramifications of my use of this license. Just because you know what was intended by a clause, does NOT mean you know what is possible DUE to that clause.
A) There are better options. BSD/MIT licensing being one.
B) If you used a "more free" license (not according to RMS's definition of free which is viral) this also is not an issue.
C) This is debatable. Nothing in that GPLv3 document to me (as a non-lawyer) makes that clear. There *is* a clause, but I really don't know if that would hold. I'm pretty sure even a lawyer couldn't tell me. THAT is my whole problem with the GPLv3. It's solving problems already solved in other means, for the sake of compatibility with GPLv2, BUT it's pissing off a lot of GPLv2 people because of all the additional stipulations they are adding in the name of "freedom" (which is in reality restriction in the licensing.)
I would retort back about your writing now, and how obviously you do not understand what you are talking about because you wrote "more simpler" but I'd rather comment on your lovely statement "though i am sure you posted that comment without even having a look at the text .. next time .. do so".
I did read the document. I did understand the general idea behind the clauses. I also am 100% certain I can not use that license without discussing it with a lawyer in depth. It is too convoluted and there are too many ways to exploit it's complication. The new restriction clauses are debatable (as in - will they be upheld in court as far as intent, or literal interpretation?) My point was, quite simply, the document is too complex and needs simplification, not another half dozen restrictions and clauses.
You think you understand the GPLv3 like the back of your hand obviously, but I don't think you understand the way the legal system works here. Just because you "understand" what a paper says, it doesn't mean you "understand" what can happen in a court of law WITH that document.
David
Member since:
2006-05-27
They're just trying to plug more holes and make the GPL the most restrictive license on the planet. Stallman is going for his own personal Utopia, where everyone gets NSF grants and lives a Bohemian livestyle instead of working for a living.
It's like where I live: the "progressive" party have been in charge for decades, and they think they are all open minded and all, but really they are the most conservative people I've ever met.
And I grew up in Montana.
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:2005-07-09
You haven't read any Microsoft EULA, have you? The GPL does not restrict how you use the software at all or even how many times you copy it. If you ignore the "DRM clause" (which is much weaker in the 2nd draft), the GPL doesn't even specify how you modify GPLed software. However, if you do change the software and you want to distribute your software, then you have no choice but to give up your changes under the GPL (it's called quid pro quo in law). If you don't want to give up your changes under the GPL, don't distribute your code. It's as simple as that.
Member since:
2006-03-15
Member since:2005-12-31
Member since:
2006-06-15
1/ If you are code author and don't like it, don't use it, but do contribute to the debate.
2/ If you are a licensee of GPL software; STFU - please bear in mind that the (1) people don't really care about your opinion and whining about something that's not yours and you didn't pay for.
3/ If you don't like RMS' ideals, see 1 and 2 above, and try to come to the conclusion that it doesn't actually matter what/why/who RMS is in the slightest.
Member since:
2006-01-19
The article you link to is written in a misunderstandable way. It says below a paragraph mentioning the new GPLv3 draft (Draft 2) the words: "Torvalds wasn't impressed".
This sentence is a link which goes to a Report about Linus not being impressed by GPLv3 Draft 1.
Please remove the "update" link again, unless you want to support bad journalism.
Member since:
2005-07-30
Member since:2005-06-29
But I can be wrong , maybe its just Thom way of punishing the universe for the passport system in his country , who know's.
What?
No, we have to bear with you because I hate banning people. I would hate to make you the 3rd person I have to ban in the past 14 months I've been here. You are close, though.
Keep that in mind. Being a GPL zealot is fine, I just suggest you learn to play nice and pretend to be a fluffy bunny from now on.
Member since:2006-07-27
Member since:2005-06-29
Don't go all victim on me now. You used insulting words, words that might be tolerated wherever you are from, but not here. Disagreeing is fine, I don't care, but don't go using words like "thief", "coward", "moron", and "SHUT THE f--k UP COWARD MORON !".
I simply do not tolerate that sort of behaviour here, got it? Whether it be from user_id xxxxxx or my Queen.
Member since:
2006-04-04
..what everyone is getting their panties in a knot about. The text of GPL is being changed so that it maintains it's ideals in a changing legal environment. The language changes amount mostly to two things:
1. better wording for compatability with non-US legal systems
2. An attempt to try and close an 'expoit' that allows people to side step the basic freedoms codified in the GPL by using encryption and the DMCA or its international equivalents (like those in Australia, sigh) to lock people out of code.
The DRM changes are not there to fight DRM itself, but to prevent it being used to add conditions that would not otherwise be legal under older versions of the GPL if done through regular copyright law / licence agreements.
edit: spelling
Edited 2006-07-28 15:35
Member since:
2005-11-15
I find it distressing that very decent OSS projects are harshly encouraged to adopt the very restrictive terms of GPL3. There are a small number of GPL zealots who trash good projects soley on licensing terms. There's a very good reason why Linus is sticking with GPL2.
When idealism becomes blind ideology it becomes a bad thing. GPL3 is a bad thing.
Member since:2006-04-04
Member since:2005-07-06
You forget that it is the licensee who ultimately decides which licensing form becomes dominant. It's the licensee who has the power to say no.
A software developer/vendor can only hope that his wares will be accepted, not force it. If all end-users said "GPL or Burst" tomorrow, a developer only would have the choice of going GPL or be stuck with software nobody wants.
Member since:
2006-07-28
Member since:2006-04-04
A lot of existing code is licensed under "GPL 2 or higher" (forget the exact wording) so some code will be available under it automatically.
What I dont know is, does the above wording mean that the code is _only_ available under the highest current version of the GPL or is available to a licencee at 2 or higher, at their choice
Member since:2006-07-28
A lot of existing code is licensed under "GPL 2 or higher" (forget the exact wording) so some code will be available under it automatically.
But that's really irrelevant to adoption by developers. You can presumably take BSD/MIT/X11 code and adopt it to GPLv3.
What I dont know is, does the above wording mean that the code is _only_ available under the highest current version of the GPL or is available to a licencee at 2 or higher, at their choice
Who knows, and is probably another example of too much legalese and politics in the license compared to other open source licenses.
There's still issues in V2 that still haven't been resolved.
Member since:
2006-01-18
Member since:
2005-07-07
That a License is a legal document under copyright law that expresses the intentions of the author on what can and can't be done with his work.
The problem with the simplistic wording many propose is that it allows for too many interpretations of what it actually means.
What I see in the GPL is a document with clear definitions, clear terms of distribution, and clear requirements for those who distribute the software.
And if you read carefully, the CDDL and the GPLv3 are not very much diferent(minus the use of DRM to prevent modified versions of the software from running)
Edited 2006-07-29 06:45
Member since:
2005-07-15
> THAT is my whole problem with the GPLv3. It's solving problems already solved in other means, for the sake of compatibility with GPLv2, BUT it's pissing off a lot of GPLv2 people because of all the additional stipulations they are adding in the name of "freedom"
Tomorrow The GPLv3 will do the exactly same thing that the GPLv2 did yesterday. The only difference is that since GPLv2 law and technology has changed and so GPLv3 has changed to do the same job like GPLv2 in a different environment.
You don't have to be a lawyer to use the GPLv3. You just have to act in the simple spirit:
I don't use my power, given by copyright, to restrict users freedom. That means:
If i distribute copies of Software (with a device) i allow the recipients to use, modify, distribute and run the software (with the device) for any purpose.
I think it's pretty simple. You only need a lawyer if you want to find a hole in the license to deny users freedom. But for your benefit i assume that your are a good person who don't want to deny other users freedom so you don't need a lawyer.
Edited 2006-07-29 21:15
