The FSF today released the fourth and 'last call' draft for version 3 of the GNU GPL. The Foundation will hear comments on the latest draft for 29 days, and expects to officially publish the license on Friday, June 29, 2007. The new draft incorporates the feedback received from the general public and official discussion committees since the release of the previous draft on March 28, 2007. FSF executive director Peter Brown said: "We've made a few very important improvements based on the comments we've heard, most notably with license compatibility. Now that the license is almost finished, we can look forward to distributing the GNU system under GPLv3, and making its additional protections available to the whole community."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-01
@Hiev
Minorities also have rights, only communist think the contrary.
The whole point here is that with GPLv3 there is a choice for all, including the minority, to avoid the issues associated with patents.
Anyone is still free to chose a different license that offers patent protection.
]{
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-10
If e-patents served their original purpose, I'd agree with you, but what we have is cold war era arsenal, you register/buy patents so that others won't sue *you*. Just keeping the lawyers busy.
Even a small, hobbist project is expected to infringe at least 2-3 (trivial) patents without knowing.
Edited 2007-06-01 19:10
Member since:2005-07-02
So the reality is different from what tomcat was implying.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. We're not talking about fundamental human rights for minority groups, we're talking about the patent system being abused by large corporations, and people here defending this abuse in the name of a few hypothetical individuals.
Let's try to keep this discussion on rational grounds and avoid these types of logical fallacies, shall we?
Also, if you're so concerned about freedom, why do you support patents at all? After all, they prevent other people from freely developing code. If the GPL's restrictions bother you, those associated with software patents should logically bother you even more!
Edited 2007-06-01 19:17
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2006-01-24
tomcat wrote:
"So what. I hold a few patents, myself. I'm not a big ISV. By your standard, my patent rights don't matter at all under GPL3. Quite frankly, I find that perspective to be ridiculously oppressive, not "freedom"."
what it means is that if you distributed your patented code under GPLv3, you will not later be able to sue anyone for using, distributing or modifying that patented code. you do have the freedom not to distribute your patented code under GPLv3 to begin with, it's up to you. not really opressive imo.
Member since:2005-07-02
Actually, they *do* matter. That's the whole point of the debate. In this context, it means that you couldn't release software using those patents under the GPL. Is that something you were planning on doing? Yeah, I didn't think so.
So, what software patents are you holding? Because, you know, if you can't prove it then it's useless to bring it up in this discussion.
Member since:2005-07-06
Excuseme, but what patents do you hold? are you in the same group as Eolas? patenting broad reaching paradigms which have not been the biproduct of R&D by rather a nice way to sue and make money.
Oh, and btw, GPL3 does not invalidate patents; what it means is that arrangements like Novell's don't occur; if people like Microsoft wish to sue, they'll have to file millions of suits against John Doe's in regards to patent violations. Patent holders either have one of two choices; grant patents to all GPL3 holders or don't do a thing.
Member since:2006-08-26
So what. I hold a few patents, myself. I'm not a big ISV. By your standard, my patent rights don't matter at all under GPL3. Quite frankly, I find that perspective to be ridiculously oppressive, not "freedom".
There was a time when Bill Gates saw software patents as harmful. It's a quick read:
http://news.com.com/Bill+Gates+and+other+communists/2010-1071_3-557...
Edited 2007-06-02 04:20
Member since:
2005-07-02
Those are a very small minority. The vast majority of software patents are held either by big ISVs, or worse yet, by companies that do nothing but amass patents for litigation purposes.
This is not new in GPL3, it was there in GPL2. It is perfectly consistent with the FSF's well-articulated opposition to software patents.
BTW, the FSF isn't alone in thinking software patents are bad. I'm sure most ISVs agree (including Microsoft, who has had to pay hundreds of millions in patent-related lawsuits). The reasons these ISVs build patent portfolio is to protect themselves from litigation, not to protect their R&D investments.
Software patents should be scrapped, pure and simple. Copyright law is quite sufficient to protect IP as far as software is concerned.