The third discussion draft of GPL version 3 is scheduled for release at 7 a.m. PDT on Wednesday, Brett Smith, a licensing compliance engineer for the Free Software Foundation said in a mailing list posting Monday. The current GPL 2 governs the rights and restrictions of many open-source and free-software projects, including high-profile ones such as the Linux kernel, Java and MySQL database. A ‘last-call’ draft is due 60 days after the third discussion draft, and the final GPL 3 will arrive 30 days after that, Smith said.
To me those words pretty much express the general opinion.
GPLv2 says you cannot add any further restrictions, and v3 says you can’t give someone a copy and then sue them for using it. That common sense clause that gives users, developers, and distributors some protection from patent holders is a restriction, so v3 cannot have this clause and be compatible.
v2-v3 incompatibility is not a big problem though. FSF put forward two solutions 16 year ago. One was to ask for copyright assignments. This is the reason the entire GNU project will painlessly migrate to v3. The other was to ask people to license code under “v2 or any later version”.
That licensing method means that future code which is v3 or “v3 or any later version” can be mixed with existing code that is “v2 or any later version”, and and distribution of the combined work can be done under the terms of v3. No compatibility problem in that case.
Most projects adopted one or both of these solutions.
“Most projects adopted one or both of these solutions.”
Except one in particular….
GPLv2 says you cannot add any further restrictions, and v3 says you can’t give someone a copy and then sue them for using it. That common sense clause that gives users, developers, and distributors some protection from patent holders is a restriction, so v3 cannot have this clause and be compatible.
v2 already implies that, v3 just clarifies it, there’s no incompatibility there. The restrictions in v3 that make it incompatible are related to things like the signing key requirements. There were some heavy handed patent provisions in the original draft but they were dialed back a bit.
Most projects adopted one or both of these solutions.
Most is speculative. The impact of v3 is ultimately dependent upon the influence fo the core projects that adopt it, not every last upload on sourceforge. The kernel has already said no, mysql actually eliminated the “or later” clause during the v3 drafting period, projects like Qt have not said anything either way (though given Trolltech’s ambitions in the embedded space are likely to remain v2 only in the immediate future). Many large scale projects are taking a prudent wait-and-see attitude, particularly those with corporate backing.
The GNU projects will certainly move to v3, but even then the LGPL will insulate projects using the core libraries from having to follow suit.
The license compatibility between v2 and v3 is inconsequential compared to the incompatibility developing between v2 and v3 proponents, and that will be a bigger issue towards adoption. With all the vitrolic surrounding things like Tivoisation, and now the unfounded hatred to Novell and MS, it would be easy for spectators on the sideline to view v3 as puntitive towards towards the commercial success that v2 has enjoyed. In some ways, the FSF is undermining the very momentum that has made the GPL relevant in the first place.
v3 adoption isn’t dependent upon the community’s acceptance of it, the split is already evident. It will really boil down to whether the IBMs, HPs and Intels are comfortable with v3; yes, they’ve been part of the drafting process but other than HP, they’ve been very quiet and the Moglen said right from the beginning that the v3 process would not be decided by consensus, it was strictly for the FSF to ultimately shape.
If the corporate heavyweights that underwrite a significant chunk of GPL project development are not onboard, forks of core projects are inevitable and GNU will be quickly extricated from being tied to Linux. A community driven GNU project will not be able to keep pace with a commercially-backed v2-only fork, particularly when that commerical backing is helping drive the GNU projects today. Basically, v3 is a gamble, v2 has a track record and far too much investment tied up in it to allow tub-thumping to interfere. It could ultimately boil down to a test between idealism and reality. Or pragmatism, as Linus likes to say. THAT’s the incompatibility that needs to be addressed.
“…adoption isn’t dependent upon the community’s acceptance of it, the split is already evident. It will really boil down to whether the IBMs, HPs and Intels are comfortable with v3”
I disagree. The cost of maintaining an entire forked distribution is prohibitive and gets NO ISV acceptance in a competitive situation- otherwise they may as well just stick with AIX and HPUX. The code authors and owners and most significantly the FSF will be calling the shots here and the corps will have to adapt their businesses to accomodate it
-xx
my fear is that GPL3 will fall under overzealous evangelism that GNU is known for instead of realistic vision of future.
From the article:
> One reason for the delay was the announcement of a
> patent deal between Microsoft and Linux seller
> Novell under which Microsoft agreed not to sue
> Novell Linux customers for patent infringement. The
> most recent draft wouldn’t have prohibited releasing
> GPL software under such conditions, but FSF founder
> Richard Stallman said the group would find a way to
> prohibit it.
I’m a bit confused by this paragraph. MS agreed not to sue, and RMS wants to prohibit that, i.e. he wants MS to sue? Something must be wrong here. Could anyone clarify what exactly RMS is against here, and how exactly the GPL3 is supposed to help it?
MS have found a way to make free software users pay patent royalties (by proxy through Novell). GPLv3 will prevent that. This protects users, and companies. It’s Novell this time, but if Novell can be shaken down for protection money, so can any other free software company. And if MS can do it to anyone, any patent holder can do it to anyone.
This also creates the counter-productive situation where Novell no longer has an incentive to work with the community to find a way to protect everyone from these patents. Worse, Novell now has an incentive to make Microsoft’s patents as dangerous as possible to free software users and distributors as this would drive people toward buying Novell’s protected versions of GNU+Linux.
I think some good explanations of the problem came out of Bruce Perens’s recent press conference:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070320130321622
Thanks a lot for explaining.
… if Novell can be shaken down for protection money, so can any other free software company.”
“Shaken down?”
Novell made that deal out of their own interest, and there’ve been recent articles saying that the deal is part of the reason for Novell’s increasing share at Red Hat’s expense.
Furthermore, no matter what’s in GPL3, there will be ways for Microsoft and GPL vendors to make deals that are in accordance with it, yet still at odds with RMS’ vision. So, FSF will come out with GPL4. Then MS will make deals in accordance with that, and FSF will come out with GPL5. And on and on.
Generally, it’s bad practice to make regulations that target the actions of a particular company. That’s why (in the US) it’s unconstitutional to craft laws that target a specific party.
I say “shaken down” because I’m being kind to Novell. I’m assuming they didn’t mean to create the problems I’ve described, and that they didn’t mean to hand MS a golden tool to FUD with.
Your pessimism about protecting ourselves from MS is unjustified. GPLv2 has done a great job of just that for 16 years, and the loophole that Novell+MS found is going to be closed before the practice of exploiting it can spread.
GPLv3 will not target Novell or MS, only actions of that type.
And with their narrow, purist licence the FSF will finally disappear in a cloud of irrelevance, leaving the rest of us to enjoy Free Software in peace.
pass the pipe now, you’ve had enough already
How much of the Linux SW stack is belonging to the FSF, and how long before its all V3?
-xx
How much of the Linux SW stack is belonging to the FSF, and how long before its all V3?
gcc, the C libs, the gnu userland. It would be difficult but not impossible for Novell to replace them with a mix of BSD and proprietary software. For example using the Intel compiler and C libs together with the BSD userland.
The Samba project is almost certain to go V3 Novell there would have to fork the project at the last V2 release and maintain their own version without of course Jeremy Allison who quit in protest.
It would be possible but difficult and full of problems for Novell to try to avoid using V3 software and the problems would only get worse with time as a lot of V2 or later projects move to V3
Yeah, but this is not about Novell only, many others will be affected for this specially all the ones that have patents, Can you imagine IBM quitting to its patent portafolio just to use GPLv3 programs?, its all about waith and see, to much speculation for the moment this is something that at least I have to see with my own eyes.
Yeah, but this is not about Novell only, many others will be affected for this specially all the ones that have patents, Can you imagine IBM quitting to its patent portfolio just to use GPLv3 programs?,
You just don’t get it. What the GPLv3 will require is that if you distribute a GPLv3 program you will not use any patents you have against distributors and users of this and subsequent versions of the program. Any third party indemnification you obtain must be similarily transferable.
Well buddy this is pretty much in IBM’s CPL license under which they release projects such as Eclipse to open source. This license is incompatible with the GPLv2 and it is expected that v3 will remove the incompatibility.
I suspect that IBM likes the GPLv3 just as Sun has indicated as well. The GPLv3 is about preventing DRM which IBM couldn’t care less about, and stopping MS use it’s patent portfolio to control and suppress FOSS which is something IBM does care very much about. Remember IBM was one of the first corporate sponsors of the FSF.
Then I don’t get all the drama about Novell and I see them using GPLv3 too, because they have no intention to sue anyone who violate its patents only MS has it and guess what? MS don’t use GPL software at all so I fail to see wha’t prevents from Novell-MS deal.
Then I don’t get all the drama about Novell and I see them using GPLv3 too, because they have no intention to sue anyone who violate its patents only MS has it and guess what? MS don’t use GPL software at all so I fail to see wha’t prevents from Novell-MS deal.
Yet another person who just doesn’t get it. The GPLv3 will require that any rights that you give to your users also apply to all other users of this software. If you do not not allow this then you are in violation of the license and cannot redistribute any software licensed under the GPLv3.
Therefore if Novell wishes to include GPLv3 software in its distribution it would have to either:
Repudiate its patent agreement with MS
or:
Persuade MS to grant the same patent immunity to all users these specific GPLv3 programs and their derivatives.
Simple eh?
Edited 2007-03-28 13:46
You are forgetting one thing. A lot of open source developers are employed somwhere. Moving to GPL v3 might not be in the employers best interest. Employer can’t force them to license their software in certain way, but they can’t force employer to keep them employed.
You are forgetting one thing. A lot of open source developers are employed somwhere. Moving to GPL v3 might not be in the employers best interest. Employer can’t force them to license their software in certain way, but they can’t force employer to keep them employed.
They don’t have to do that. They can just fork all the projects they prefer to remain v2. Off the top of my head, glibc and gcc are the most important. If they can just maintain their own branch under a v2 only provision, they could just get away with it. The licence will not revoke the previous licenses. It adds another license.
They can simply fork the projects that are low level enough to cause issues. The higher level things like Samba are not problematic. And they can still be forked.
Although GPLv3 excludes Novell there are other groups against it, notably Linus and the Linux kernel devs. So there would be quite a lot of programming muscle behind a GPLv2 fork of gcc, etc.
It’s just a shame that RMS has decided to go this route, but at least he can remain ideologically pure.
Of course one happy side effect of a fork would be an end to the whining about “it should be called GNU/Linux”.
But noone has the motivation to fork it apart from Novel. Do you think the kernel devs are all going to start maintaining a gcc fork because novel signed a stupid deal?
my perception – and I may be wrong. Is that Novel trails RedHat in the certified application space, RedHat is the dominant distro. If Novel do *anything* that makes SLES distros less similar (less compatible) I think a lot of ISVs drop SLES like a hot potato. On top of that Novel wind up maintaining the entire software stack from their own budget- the entire linux business model fails at that point.
Its not obvious to me how an existing agreement MS/Novel affects newly licensed work and the legality of all that – I suspect Novel will move to V3 along with everything and everyone else apart from the kernel, and try to keep their heads down and avoid ruffling feathers in the way that they have done.
-xx
-xx
I’m not so sure anymore that the FSF is really off track. For example, if it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t have had a massive uproar against “trusted computing”, and might already see it in full action in Vista now (and yes, there are reasons to buy Vista, even if it seems strange at first…).
It’s really an “all power to consumers, no power to companies” thing that the FSF advocates, and the more I think about it, the more it sounds sensible. They have a talent though for presenting it in a completely unsensible-sounding way, and for making themselves look like idiots.
My subject of this post intentionally leaves of “ary” as while I would perhaps call RMS many things, that would not be one of them.
However, he has proven useful, continued to remain relevant (to varying degree), and most notably, has foreshadowed pitfalls with ravings most ignored – until it became relevant. Security issues in binary drivers, Microsoft threating all Linux users with patents by _being able_ to buy it.
I think GPL3 will succeed because of Novel/Microsoft. To use Copyleft and leave the issue of patents untouched with the future of software patents unknown, may not be the best move for some software (Samba perhaps).
New projects and ones who are looking to be ‘as free as possible’ may jump to 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl3#Version_3
And unless I am mistaken, drafts of the GPL3 *before* the Novell/Microsoft deal would have prevented it. Correct me if I’m wrong : )
Edited 2007-03-27 14:52
I have hopes they won’t screw this up, but with the recent fighting over whether *users* can load binary modules into the Linux kernel, I have to be a cynic.
GPLv3 is right. It doesn’t fit to anybody, but it hasn’t to, anyways. People who don’t like it can still use GPLv2 or any other licence.
Others like me see GPLv3 just as an evolution of v2 taking the necessary steps to cope with today’s problems.
So if I release software under v3, I am assured no one can take it, add some software which is patented, and re-release it, forcing me to license his/her patents just to use the improvements on my very own software myself! Instead, I get free use of these patents and therefore free use of the improvements, too, just how the “give back” deal (free software only spawns free software) is meant!
I don’t care about any patent holder who won’t combine my software with his/her patented stuff to not “loose” the patents. I wouldn’t want to have to pay for his/her patents anyway, so his/her software wouldn’t be of use to me anyway, too.
As a free software developer, I will publish my further code using GPLv3. I thank the FSF for putting these efforts in providing such a license protecting my very own rights I myself couldn’t think of.
fact of the matter is that patents pose a very real challenge to the ability to redistribute code
I still maintain that the license fragmentation that this will generate will be a setback to both Free *and* Open Source software (if you are one of those people who makes a distinction).
It does not matter whether one is aligned with OSS or FSF philosophies. (I suspect that the majority of us have an ideological foot in both camps.)
It is a sheer folly of arrogance to push through this controversial license in the absence of a *very* solid consensus. It is pretty clear that such a consensus does not exist and is unlikely to unless the final license is substantially changed from the current draft. There has been no indication that it will. The reactive inclusion of the new anti-Novell verbiage is unlikely to help.
But if something does not change very significantly for the better before the release of this license, I’m pretty sure that history will record GPLv3 as a factor that inhibited, rather than helped, the progress of FOSS.
And that will be bad for us all.
(Unless you happen to be a fan of closed source software, of course.)
sbergman27 wrote:
-“It is pretty clear that such a consensus does not exist and is unlikely to unless the final license is substantially changed from the current draft.”
please state what needs to be ‘substantially changed’ in the current GPLv3 draft so that I may know where YOU stand.
“””
please state what needs to be ‘substantially changed’ in the current GPLv3 draft so that I may know where YOU stand.
“””
That is exactly what I am avoiding in my post.
It’s not about what I want or where I stand.
It’s about what is best for FOSS.
I believe that the GPLv3 will force people to choose between the two license versions, thereby driving a needless, and damaging, wedge between the various code bases; a wedge more damaging than those practices that GPLv3 seeks to stop.
I advocate getting beyond the myopia of our own philosophical views, and really taking a look at what effect a GPLv2/Gplv3 split might have with respect to our objectives.
I have no problem with a GPLv3 to improve upon the GPLv2 as long as it avoids that wedge. But I’m not sure that such a thing is possible unless it is two-way compatible with GPLv2. And I’m not sure that’s possible.
Edited 2007-03-27 22:02
sbergman27 wrote:
-“That is exactly what I am avoiding in my post.
It’s not about what I want or where I stand.
It’s about what is best for FOSS. “
oh please, enough with the runaround. ok, so what what needs to be ‘substantially changed’ in the current GPLv3 draft so that the end result is ‘what is best for FOSS.’ then, since you shifted focus from your viewpoint to that of free open source software?
I mean really, what’s the point of arguing for ‘substantial changes’ in the current GPLv3 draft if you can’t even say what those ‘substantial changes’ are?
Well, if you are asking where I think the trouble spots are, and not where I, personally, stand with regards to those issues, I would say that anti-DRM and the patent retaliation provisions are divisive points of the license which are likely to do more harm to us than good.
The anti-Novell provisions, which I already mentioned, are not likely to help, though I hesitate to say more until it is clear just what they are.
I caution you that if you are wanting to debate whether those points in the license are justified or not, I’m not biting.
We’ve had a zillion threads full of bickering back and forth on those topics. And they all miss the big picture, IMO.
Dooh…
Patents again… have you read GPL v. 2?. GPL v.2 already _has_ a patent retaliation. It is just implicit rather than explicit, but none the less equally valid in court.
The DRM-part is right though – to some extent. GPL v. 3 does not prohibit DRM in GPL’ed applications. It only “prohibits” the effect of using DRM (efficiently making DRM useless with GPL v. 3).
The DRM-part is controversial but none the less FSF has no choice if it wants to protect the four freedoms. Hardware DRM violates the four freedoms and therefore the spirit of GPL v. 2 – as stated in the preamble for GPL v. 2. Personally I don’t care much in relation to Linux since I consider LGPL a better license for a kernel than GPL.
The “anti-Novell” provisions are necessary as well in order to protect the four freedoms. You can say that Microsoft through the deal with Novell forces the hands of FSF – or put another way. Through FSF’ reactive behaviour Microsoft has the upper hand in the battle between proprietary and FLOSS.
See why I was so reticent to be bring up any particular points?
Careful as I tried to be, the first reply is already trying to turn this into yet another thread bickering about whether or not the points are justified, and completely ignores the topic of what negative effects a GPLv2/GPLv3 might have on our ability to move FOSS forward.
I suppose that the FSF implicitly believes that their victory will be so complete that the residual GPLv2 projects and their users won’t matter.
Edited 2007-03-28 16:23
I get the impression, and am hoping I’m right, that the split is not as bad as you think it will be because frankly, if your right, the situation could spell disaster on a very large scale.
I, like yourself, have a foot in both camps and am put at a disadvantage by thinking this way. On the one hand, I consider the adoption of FLOSS by commercial entities to be one of the yard sticks by which the FLOSS model’s success can be measured. On the other hand, I still think that without the moral foundation of FLOSS, namely RMS and the FSF, the movement/model loses the high ground as well as it’s guide.
Although I’m sure that one can live quite happily without the other, the fact that they are both responsible for how far FLOSS has gotten should be reason enough for them to try and get along as obviously both camps do well when working together.
Again, just my EUR0.02
1. This license can be applied except in circumstances where:
a. Your company’s name starts with ‘N’ and/or ends in ‘ll’.
b. Your company’s logo is a single letter (e.g. a red ‘N’).
c. An agent of your company has been within 20 feet of anyone working for a company within a 10 mile radius of Seattle, WA (e.g. Redmond)
You may apply for a special exemption specifically from Richard Stallman of the FSF, but only if he’s wearing a disk platter on his head at the time of the application.
2. If you own a patent, deal with patents, or can even spell the word patent, you may not use this license at all, in fact you are not to read it… stop reading here…. (thanks).
3. If you use cryptography, encryption or anything else related to digital rights management, you cannot use the terms of this license unless you give us the keys for your access.
4. XEmacs sucks. It just does. They used my code without permission. They’re evil. Don’t use it.
It’d be interesting if the copyright holder of the Linux trademark, who is against the ‘new’ license, did not allow it to be used in conjunction with GPL v3 code…
Edited 2007-03-27 23:21
> It’d be interesting if the copyright holder of the
> Linux trademark […]
Erm… what?
> […] did not allow it to be used in conjunction
> with GPL v3 code…
I you are referring to the Linux kernel, then this is the case, depending on what exactly you mean by “used in conjunction with”. The kernel license is v2 and only v2, meaning that v3-only parts cannot be distributed with the kernel. Userspace software is unaffected by the kernel license, as is how you actually use (not distribute) the software.
Hes talking about the *word* linux, which is a trademark. However I don’t think it would hold- it would be seen as a bad faith act toward busnesses such as redhat.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Alfameta, you should understand that trademarks and copyright are two entirely different things. Terms like “the copyright holder of the Linux trademark” just don’t make sense.
Yeah, I flubbed the two terms…
> It’d be interesting if the copyright holder of the
> Linux trademark […]
Erm… what?
Linus Torvalds still owns the trademark to Linux*. If he does not want you to use the word Linux in conjunction with your product, you cannot use it.
For example, Microsoft could clean up any given Linux distro of copyleft code fairly easily (once they got the organization done, it’d take about 2-3 weeks for a company their size), and sell it as a closed-source OS. However, they couldn’t advertise it as a Linux distro, because they don’t own that trademark — unless, for some reason, they got Linus’s blessing.
* http://www.linuxmark.org/
people are painting the devil on the walls claiming gplv3 goes too far, is showing zealotism on behalf of the FSF and all this crap, but they dont realize that what the FSF is doing right now is NO different from what they did when creating the gplv2. They protected against every known way to exploit it, every KNOWN. Today many years later new known ways have arrived, ways which basically only a very very few have chosen to use, and thus the FSF are now addressing these ways, but NOW we are suddenly supposed to accept gplv2 for being suffecient, when it was the EXACT same thing with gplv2.
ill bet these people, once/if the gplv3 is more or less globally accepted and used, and gplv4 is in the making, will say the EXACT same thing. “Screw those who exploit the gpl! gplv3 is suffecient! the FSF is just zealots creating gplv4!!!!”
There are better solutions that cost less at CES…Can you say Slingcatcher??? Plus i`m more excited about the Dell with built-in hi-def cable card
I have found that, even with this great Apple TV we still need a video converter (things like Apple TV Converter) in case to put our favourite movies onto Apple TV before playing them on TV Screen.
Best apple tv converter
http://www.apple-tv-converter.net