“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.
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.
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).
Your not the only thief coward and liar who as a problem with the GPL , the GPL is not meant to be understood by MORON like you , its mean to be effective globally , in the courts of law and do its job , period.
The choice your left with is to only use GPL V2 software or no GPL v3 software at all. Because last I looked its not the moron who claim to use GNU/Linux and try to destroy it that decide what license the developper use , the majority of them are vastly pro GPL , the majority are all in favor of V3 and will use it.
RMS contrary to your lies and slanders under the cover of anonimousity , as been effective in is jobs of liberating Open Source software from the clutch of thief liar and coward like you , if you dont like him and is way you can always sue him for attacking your income and making you loose business because of his decision , but then again you dont work on GNU/Linux and have no business with it.
You havent realised by now that every attack and slander you have made against RMS , the FSF , The GPL as been met , destroyed , laughed at, by a tottal defeat on your part , you try to link GNU/Linux with cancer , communism , religions and zealotery. All of wich as failed.
Torvals use the GPL , he may disagree with the FSF and RMS on details , but until he keep releasing is work under the GPL he is always one of its stronguest supporter. You do nothing so your of absolutely no consequence , exept making background repetitive noise.
The funny thing is that the GPL is the most used license , and that the people who use it do so by choice because NO one pays them to endorse it.
Now whats left to say ? SHUT THE f–k UP COWARD MORON !
yes thats about it.
Now that you have been put in your rightfull place , can you explain to me why would I whant to support DRM , when its illegal and infriging on my rights even do I fully paid to use the content wich is under it ?
Please reconsider your language. Swearing and cursing does not help RMS or free software at all, quite the contrary.
Your entirely delusionnal if you think this is not the appropriate method to adress such people , and your even more disconnected with reality if you think me tottally insulting this individual as any bearing at all on how he falsely perceive RMS or Free Software and how others do.
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.
“Wow, you are at your best again”
Your as dumb and clueless as ever …
“The essence of Free Software is Free Software”
Dont talk about things you dont understand or grasp at all.
“The GPL is only a means to an end.”
The GPL is a license … a legal binding document if done legally and properly. Its not a paper done in order to be understood by clueless and morons and be completely irrelevant or argued or trown out due to inconsistancy and no legal basis at all in court.
“This end is to publish free software with a restriction that eventually forces other projects to become free software too”
There is no restriction , and it forces no one to adopt it or touch it or interract with it.
“or not use the original code (this sounds a bit negative, but was meant in a neutral way). ”
There is nothing neutral about it , its free software it stay free software , its really simple , I dont know why you still dont get it , and try to argue it at all.
“An overly complex license defeats this purpose. ”
The complexity of things is only due to people failing to whant to learn why things are so , most things are pretty simple once you understand them , The GPL is quite clear and precise and the most important thing effective and not vague. So there is no point at all arguing it before or after.
“Programmers are usually not lawyers”
Most programmers are educated enough or paid enough that they can afford one or one is provided for them and do choose a license with full knowledge of it. Also the GPL is not blocking anyone from taking there code and changing it to another license , if they where wrong about there own false interpretations , The GPL code stays , but they are not forced to keep making GPL derivative on there own code.
“and tend to choose lincenses they understand, for the good reason of not trapping themselves.”
Almost always outside of the GPL the programmers do not choose wich license to use with the code they make as they are work for hire , in short just for you , they get paid to make code by other who decide wich license is to be used by contract.
Now that you see that you where wrong and will disagree with my answer as always , lets trow in one other point you stupid Bozo keep avoiding :
Why should a defender of the GPL , advocate of Free software and promoter of GNU/Linux support DRM ?
When DRM stand at the opposite end of what the GPL , GNU/Linux and Free Software is.
Might it be because as always you have no idea what your talking about , as usual.
Free Software is meant to stay Free Software and is protected and done so because otherwise it would be as innefective as Open Source is alone.
Free Software is not neutral. It stands for freedom and defense of rights that other offers take away. Its not midlle ground or temperate.
Discussion is over for me , my point is made , and known.
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…
Must we go to legalese to specify our meanings clearly?
Short Answer: Yes.
Longer Answer: In normal conversation like 70+% is inferred, to be binding everything must be explicitly stated. One of the most obvious changes is replacing all pronoun with thier full equivalnets.
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.
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.
‘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
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
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.
And I grew up in Montana.
If it was Butte or Missoula, then you might not have encountered people all that conservative…
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.
This is completely normal, imo linux should change the license to something else – like MPL and stuff, just to annoy Stallman. GNU/Linux anyone?
> This is completely normal, imo linux should change the
> license to something else
This isn’t possible, as has been debated countless times. Also, staying with GPL v2 seems a good option to me.
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.
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.
Why do we have to bear with Moulinneuf?
Because everyone but you feel , more inteligent , stronger and sound better and look better when I write an opposing view from them.
You see when everyone else see my post they say to themself , fiew , I am so happy I dont sound as stupid , write as harshly and am not as broken record and repetitive as he is.
Also they feel proud in there writting techniques because they know they cant write as badly in english as me.
You see kids grow up thinking I will never be as bad as that man , they feel proud about who and what they are , all because of me.
But I can be wrong , maybe its just Thom way of punishing the universe for the passport system in his country , who know’s.
certainly not you it seems.
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.
“What? ”
http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2006/07/27/behind-that-fcuking-ser…
———-
I read your warning and personnal insult and charactherization quite clearly and will adapt my attitude , tone and answers entirely based on it from now on. Thanks but I will pass on being a fluffy bunny , whatever that is , instead I am going to refrain from replying to any comments. I will instead only reply from my own point of view and disregard any personnal attack , slanderous comment or insult made on GNU/Linux , the FSF , the GPL , any of its community members and contributors , because I know now that they are sanctionned and approved and tolereated by the moderator of OSnews.
I appologize for having forgotten my “special” place and the rules that only apply to myself.
Special rules? Where?
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.
“Don’t go all victim on me now.”
Its you who is the victim in all this , not me , last I looked , I extremised the oppositre view of some people in an attempt to gather attention on the ridicule comment and insulting , slanderous and totally non factual view posted on the website you moderate and editorialize.
“You used insulting words”
Yes , always the same 4 words , wich in the way I used them are the word that apply and have no replacement , that are considered polite or tolerated that is , sorry if they offended you , thats the first you mentionned about it , otherwise I would have taken 5 second to explain my position on them and rectified my attitude.
Coward : Someone who cannot face an adversary directly , a person who shows fear
Thief : a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it
Liar : a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly
Moron : a person of subnormal intelligence
“words that might be tolerated wherever you are from”
They are in the dictionnary.
” but not here. ”
You might whant to look up on that one.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&scoring=d&ie=utf-8&…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.osnews.com+…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.osnews.com+…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.osnews.com+…
“Disagreeing is fine”
Do you know the difference ? Disagreeing attack the position and content , personnal insult attack the individual and groups :
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15311&comment_id=146928
I call the above personnal attack on a group and people wich I consider my friends and on myself . and responded accordingly.
“I simply do not tolerate that sort of behaviour here”
Yes , from me , I got it , my special rules , have been understood perfectly.
“got it?”
Crystal clear. You can check , I did not use those words since you told me.
“Whether it be from user_id xxxxxx or my Queen.”
My real life name is Moulinneuf , not GPL zealot , not zealot , not idiot , not etc … that must be the next special rule I got comming change you name real life name its annoying to some.
..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
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.
which harsh terms?
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.
Linux won’t be GPLv3 and judging by the comments here and over at ./, people normally sympathetic to the GPL aren’t impressed.
Some people will use it, but it won’t have the same kind of impact that v2 had. And that was probably to be expected from the beginning.
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
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.
“I think I am more ignorant than I am stupid, but thats because I acknowledge I dont know everything”.
Moulinneuf 19-10-2003.
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
> 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