This guest column by a representative of the Free Software Foundation Europe discusses proposed provisions in a future version 3 of the GNU General Public License that are intended to reduce open-source license proliferation, by making the GPL more flexible.
Sun is going to open-source Java. Under the GPL v2.
Does anybody need any more proof that there is nothing wrong with GPL2?
Just for fun, what would the proof need to be? It’s no mystery at all: just show how the GPL2 protects the “four freedoms” at least as well as the GPL3 current draft. Anything short of this, such as whatever Sun does, makes not a bit of difference to, you know, the actual people creating the license.
no, ofcourse theres nothing wrong, and tivo did not legally abuse gpl covered works.. no, it never happened.. i dont heearrr you.
Excellent article that presents one aspect of v3 which I think most would agree is a good thing.
The developers of GCC’s Java compiler, IBM’s Eclipse project, and GNU Classpath are working on combining their code; this can’t currently be done completely because of license incompatibility, but the more flexible GPL v3 should fix that.
Sun’s going to use dual licensing, and if the current version of the GPL were v3, they’d probably use that as one of the choices.
You can do the same thing under the GPL2 and that would be the better choice. I think the GPL3 is going to be bad for the community.
In my opinion GPL v3 sounds like it tries to solve a problem the wrong way.
I think many countries need to rethink their laws concerning software patents and IP.
Actually many of those laws don’t really fit the software business because they were modeled too closely after laws applying to other technical inventions.
The GPL v3 seems to be attacking the whole problem from the wrong direction:
Instead of putting in paragraphs to work around broken patent/IP laws, putting more emphasis on creating public awareness about this broken system seems to be the right move, imho.
I just don’t think that “fight fire with fire” or “fight laws with licenses” will work in this case.
But I hope the future proves me wrong, of course!
Yes, because putting a public awareness clause is surely going to solve the problem completely and force governments to outlaw software patents! (sarcastic)
“Yes, because putting a public awareness clause is surely going to solve the problem completely and force governments to outlaw software patents! (sarcastic)”
Nah, I was not saying it would be easy. Neither was I suggesting to “outlaw” patents.
But I do think that they should be changed a bit.
Not only OSS-enthusiasts but also many small software companies would probably agree.
It is important to keep in mind that no license can magically override laws.
I don’t remember the exact wording but the GPL had parts saying “if a) cannot be applied due to laws in the country do b)”.
I still wonder how such insane crap could ever become a law.
It seems to indicate that we have a _far_ bigger problem then whether or not GPL v3 is the way to go.
Don’t get me wrong, I never really liked or trusted politicians.
I did hope however that they had enough intelligence/decency left not to rape their neighbour’s daughter, push old people down the staircase or make laws like those.
Yes, I was naive. You may now lol at me again 😉
But before you do, remember one thing:
Politicians are whores and they’ll do nearly everything if not doing it means they’ll lose popularity and become a nobody.
The problem is that only geeks seem to care about this issue and we are small in number
OK, given the intractability of creating public awareness and your belief that the GPL is the wrong solution, what is the right solution?
What about the urgency of the problem? Releasing the best possible GPLv3 next year and encouraging its adoption is on a far shorter time scale than grassroots lobbying with precious few dollars.
“Releasing the best possible GPLv3 next year and encouraging its adoption is on a far shorter time scale than grassroots lobbying with precious few dollars.”
Agreed. Puts me in a tough situation somehow, since I’m usually an advocate of “worse is better” myself.
First of all I don’t believe that v3 will ever gain significant traction within the open source community.
Even if it was perfect it would still have a hard time because many people don’t like it.
If it helps to make people become aware of the problem it’s useful nevertheless.
If we cannot stop them lobbying we probably need to start lobbying.
I’m so sick of this vicious circle:
People don’t care because they think they have no power
and they have no power because they don’t care.
If you somehow got enough voters/buyers gathered you could really scare the sh*t out of politicians/companies.
Let’s just hope the majority is not too dumb to realize this.
So I guess what I’m saying is:
There is no short term solution but this problem is worth more than just a short effort.
I can understand the pessimism you express, but I have been pleasantly surprised by how gung-ho people like Moglen are. The dude gets in the middle of many disputes and disagreements and just bobs up and asks for more. One does not have to agree with any point the guy makes to be impressed with the enthusiasm in the recordings of his various presentations.
Although adoption of GPLv3 is not to be taken for granted, there will be the wholesale adoption of the toolchain along with most if not all of the other GNU projects. Moreover, “GPLv2 only” is greatly outweighed by “or later”, so it is not evident that the great majority of devs don’t like it. Indeed, way too many people fail to see that among the few “GPLv2 only” cases, this choice frequently is just an ordinary business precaution with licenses that do not yet exist, such as GPLv3.
On the other hand, everyone knows that the kernel devs cannot change licenses easily if at all, so it is very easy for them to use their disproportionate influence to push their own choices. Most people who agree with them seem to either (1) believe, in effect, that allowing DRM to be forced on people matters more than “Freedom 1”, or (2) put more stock on who says something rather than what is said.
People choose the GPL for the freedoms it protects, so what good is GPLv2 with the kind of crap pulled by Tivo, Novell/MSFT, etc.? (Those who mention legality totally miss the point.) GPLv2 becomes legal swiss cheese, protecting less and less, and naturally leads to the consideration of GPLv3.
Edited 2006-11-11 18:45
“Creating public awareness” is “perfect”, which is often the enemy of the good.
Until such a utopian vision is achieved, versions of the GPL must continue to keep pace with new threats to the freedoms that it seeks to protect. Fortunately, this process itself helps create public awareness. In particular, big business is becoming aware that free software matters.
v3 deals with the same thing as v2 – software freedoms
# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
So any threat to those freedoms are fodder for v3 the same as any threat back when v2 was wrote was fodder then.
With the advance of technology it is so easy to dance around v2 that I think we need v3 NOW!
Edited 2006-11-11 00:19
i had to look twice to make sure it wasn’t an informit article.
With all due respect, Mr O’Riordan really needs to pick up the cluephone.
Q: How does Mr O’Riordan claim that the GPL V3 would reduce license proliferation?
A: He says that it would reduce license proliferation by encouraging variants on the GPL V3, that is, by ecouraging license proliferation.
Oh well, at least he admits that GPL V3 is capable of backfiring.
Variations of the GPL v3 would still be GPLv3 and would allow it to be compatible with more licenses as well as being able to be tweaked so that someone may choose GPLv3varient instead of another license.
Thats right v3 is not JUST about DRM.
I submitted an article or two about the GPLv3, just waiting for them to show up.
Edited 2006-11-11 01:58
No but DRM is a big part of it as well as forcing the Google model to release source as well. I just do not see this as being a good thing for the community. Look at all the fighting it has caused already and it isn’t even out yet.
Alright, show where GPLv3 forces anything about the “Google model”. You are referring to what “application service providers” must do, and it turns out that the GPLv3 requires absolutely nothing from them.
How about actually learning something real about it? Say, like–I don’t know–maybe actually <it>reading</it> the current draft, rather than speculating and repeating lies? Thank you.
Variations of the GPL v3 would still be GPLv3 and would allow it to be compatible with more licenses as well as being able to be tweaked so that someone may choose GPLv3varient instead of another license.
Um, no. If the wording of two licenses aren’t identical; for all legal purposes they are two different licenses.
GPLv3 Variant A and BPLv3 Variant B might be compatible in some limited sense, but they would be different licenses. After all, if there’s no difference there’s no reason for different wording.
FSF really should let the legal people make the legal arguments.
By “variations of the GPLv3” he just means GPLv3 plus optional terms. True, the sets of terms would differ, but they could not render the corresponding projects incompatible.
By “variations of the GPLv3” he just means GPLv3 plus optional terms. True, the sets of terms would differ, but they could not render the corresponding projects incompatible.
Sure they could; and no doubt eventually will in at least one incarnation.
He even hints at a likely place for this to happen when he mentions patent retaliation.
Such hypothetical incompatibility seems no likelier than the uncertainties surrounding GPLv2 (e.g., is it enforcible?) since its introduction.
Your criticism seems more based on patent retaliation itself. Earlier you said the GPLv3 is capable of backfiring, but I think that is a bit overstated since the “it can backfire in some cases” refers to patent retaliation in general, not the clause (hence the narrowness of the clause). Yes, I know, if it could backfire in the narrow case, then the current draft of the GPLv3 backfires.
As stated, v3 allows exceptions, additional permissons or options if you wish. It allows flexability while still providing software freedoms.
Might even provide enough wiggle room to provide at least a partial solution to the DRM/TIVO empasse.
I know I usually rant like a lunatic but this time I am serious. Read the v3 draft. Don’t get stuck on just part of it but read it all. It really is a interesting license and inmy opinion superior to v2.
Come on and post the articles I submitted….
Edited 2006-11-11 06:12
As stated, v3 allows exceptions, additional permissons or options if you wish. It allows flexability while still providing software freedoms.
Sigh. The GPL, in any of its versions, doesn’t provide, defend, allow, <insert-verb-here> and sort of freedom at all.
It’s a software license. Under copyright law the only thing it does is set the terms under which the licensed software can be redistributed.
Some of those terms grant rights that aren’t granted by default under copyright; others restrict rights that are.
It is possible to conform precisely to the letter of the GPL and not grant any of the intended “freedoms” that the FSF claims and that will remain true under the draft version 3 (which, yes, I’ve read carefully and in detail.)
“It is possible to conform precisely to the letter of the GPL and not grant any of the intended…”
OK, so can anyone come up with such a scenario?
This is the kind of scenario that should have been imagined over fifteen years ago before GPLv2 came out. Stallman cannot be expected to think of everything, of course.
“It is possible to conform precisely to the letter of the GPL and not grant any of the intended…”
OK, so can anyone come up with such a scenario?
Providing obfuscated source that requires build tools that aren’t GPLed and may not even be available is the one I’ve seen used most often.
There’s no way to “fix” this via the GPL, since it utilizes copyright law, and you can’t set conditions in a license except those that directly impact the redistribution of the licensed product. Any attempt to do so will die a horrible death in the courts.
The obfuscated source approach is pretty rare, but withholding build tools is pretty common.