An IT Manager’s Journal article tries to clear up misunderstandings about the controversial GPLv3. It discusses several common points of controversy and misunderstanding, and notes that discussion of these points is ongoing.
An IT Manager’s Journal article tries to clear up misunderstandings about the controversial GPLv3. It discusses several common points of controversy and misunderstanding, and notes that discussion of these points is ongoing.
I do understand all the points and I don’t missundertand them, but why is so hard for the FSF understand that some of us don’t agree with them?.
Dear FSF, I understand what is GPLv3 all about and I don’t agree so stop acting like we don’t understand it and stop playing deaf.
Edited 2007-05-11 16:01
>I do understand all the points and I don’t missundertand them, but why is so hard for the FSF understand that some of us don’t agree with them?.
It’s not a problem if someone disagree with the FSF, that’s OK. But if people say they disagree and argue about it with wrong statements about GPLv3 than it’s time for FSF to correct the misunderstandings.
With articles like this, all the GPLv3 conferences around the world, etc. the FSF doesn’t want that everyone agrees with the FSF but they want that you agree or disagree on the basis of facts and not on the basis of wrong informations or misunderstandings.
Edited 2007-05-11 16:51
“With articles like this, all the GPLv3 conferences around the world, etc. the FSF doesn’t want that everyone agrees with the FSF but they want that you agree or disagree on the basis of facts and not on the basis of wrong informations or misunderstandings. ”
Not to mention that it’s pretty hard to debat with someone who got the wrong idea about stuff because of a simple misunderstanding.
Some of those misunderstandings cant been seen as anything but mindless stupidity imo.
Oh, if some doesn’t agree with the FSF is because is stupid?
Don’t you love this advocates of “Freedom”.
That’s not what hamster wrote. hamster wrote that some of the misunderstandings were plain stupid. He never claimed that disagreement was stupid.
You are deliberately twisting his words. But then again you are most likely a multi-profile with the same person behind as for Manuma. One person, two profiles. I wonder how many profiles you have.
“Oh, if some doesn’t agree with the FSF is because is stupid?
Don’t you love this advocates of “Freedom”.”
No i wouldn’t call someone stupid for disagreeing with the fsf. Hell i don’t agree with most of what they are saying my self.
Not that i can see how my opinion about fsf is relevant but it seems to be important for you anyways to understand that i don’t call people stupid for disagreeing with the fsf.
“””
Dear FSF, I understand what is GPLv3 all about and I don’t agree so stop acting like we don’t understand it and stop playing deaf.
“””
I can’t mod this up past +5 so I just want to say that I agree and would give it a +1 if I could.
That’s great you understand the point of GPLv3. This article is to address the misunderstandings that other people have so I guess you’re not the intended audience for the article.
I agree with the FSF, that many people are taking points in the GPLv3 out of context and blowing them up.
BUT and mean a strong BUT the FSF also needs to understand that some of us strongly disagree with some aspects of their anti-DRM clauses. I know they are looking to more clearly define DRM section, and I look forward to reviewing and debating the specifics after the next draft is released.
you dont seem to understand that the gpl version 3 has NO anti-DRM clauses.. read the damn article..
It is anti-drm because tries to invalidate it, Is just saying F***-off to DRM but with nicer words, who is dumb enought to believe is not anti-drm?, certaintly Im not.
It is not anti-DRM. It is perfectly legal and possible to use DRM with GPL v.3. Of course you cannot use it to prevent fair use since it would violate the four freedoms, but if you want to violate the four freedoms you shouldn’t be using GPL at all.
If you support fair use you can only be against DRM in the way it is often used (e.g. to restrict rights one cannot surrender according to law).
I do think they are playing with the words in the license to hide that it is anti-drm, but I don’t beleve them at all.
Edited 2007-05-11 17:05
@Manuma or Yuske
It doesn’t matter what you believe, or how they play with words. The meaning of those words. Has been pretty public. GPL3 even has an accompanying document.
They are unusually talking all the vagueness out of a License. To stop it being exployted
The trouble is the License is getting more and more difficult to understand, as its getting increasingly more legal.
It doesn’t matter what you believe
Of course, for the FSF doesn’t matter any opinion but theirs, is common and I already know it.
So they just need to say:
“Hey we don’t like DRM and we are trying to puch our political agenda via GPLv3”.
At least that would be honest.
They are already saying that. And we all know that. And what’s the problem?
If you like DRM and despise GPL then don’t use GPL and please go ahead and use DRM.
The only reason for complaining about (the non-existent) anti-DRM clause would be if you want to leech from the work of thousands of developers and use it in a proprietary product. Leechers of course HATE any thing they cannot abuse. Are you such a leecher or don’t you realize you have the option not to distribute software under the GPL v.3?
They are already saying that. And we all know that. And what’s the problem?
No. they are saying “GPLv3 is not anti-drm”, read the article again.
The only reason for complaining about (the non-existent) anti-DRM clause would be if you want to leech from the work of thousands of developers and use it in a proprietary product. Leechers of course HATE any thing they cannot abuse. Are you such a leecher or don’t you realize you have the option not to distribute software under the GPL v.3?
Not everyone supports that statement and the FSF cannot be taken as the spokerman of the Open Source developers, that’s the truth.
@Yuske
I don’t know where you got that quote…but would love to show the source.
and that is from the article actually your quote says it just as well. It actually clarifies that it applies to *using* source code under GPL3, and that source code…hell the quote says it.
Edited 2007-05-11 18:01
and that is from the article actually your quote says it just as well. It actually clarifies that it applies to *using* source code under GPL3
Like I said before, theu are just playing with the words, if you don’t want to see it that’s your problem.
True, the GPL v.3 isn’t anti-DRM. FSF is however anti-DRM to the extent DRM is used to prevent fair use. But if DRM is used to secure the rights of the copyright holder AND to secure fair use for the buyer of the work then FSF is pro-DRM.
You want FSF to be looked at as always anti-DRM. And they are not. They are only anti-DRM to the extent it violates (constitutional rights for) fair use. DRM can be used with GPL v.3 – as long it is implemented in a way that works with the four freedoms.
FSF has never claimed to be the spokesman of Open Source. FSF has made it clear that FSF is not such a spokesman. Actually FSF has made it clear that Open Source is a completely different movement.
Hovever, you are not an open source developer. If you were a BSD/MIT-follower you would object against proprietary software because of the restrictions, just like BSD/MIT-followers object (sometimes rightfully so – GPL is not the best choice for everything – sometimes other licenses are much better IMHO) against the distribution demands in the GPL.
Basically you are a leecher, using Open Source (not Free Software) in your products and you are complaining about GPL because it prevents you from stealing the work of other persons and make a legal profit of other persons hard work.
Says a lot about you.
True, the GPL v.3 isn’t anti-DRM. FSF is however anti-DRM to the extent DRM is used to prevent fair use. But if DRM is used to secure the rights of the copyright holder AND to secure fair use for the buyer of the work then FSF is pro-DRM.
Now the FSF is pro-DRM? now that’s playing with words.
You want FSF to be looked at as always anti-DRM.
No, Im showing my point of view and you are free to not agree with it the same Im free to not agree with the FSF.
FSF has never claimed to be the spokesman of Open Source.
Yes they have and they even talk about “My freedom”, when did I gave them the righs to talk about my freedom?
Hovever, you are not an open source developer. If you were a BSD/MIT-follower you would object against proprietary software because of the restrictions, just like BSD/MIT-followers object (sometimes rightfully so – GPL is not the best choice for everything – sometimes other licenses are much better IMHO) against the distribution demands in the GPL.
So, according to you and Open Source developer cannot be in a middle ground?, just the behavior of the FSF advocates, you are with me or you aren’t.
Basically you are a leecher, using Open Source (not Free Software) in your products and you are complaining about GPL because it prevents you from stealing the work of other persons and make a legal profit of other persons hard work.
I don0t even use GPL software or libraries at all, I stick to LPGL or MIT Libraries, but of course you know me more than my self.
Says a lot about you.
No, Im showing my point of view like everybody does in this forum, people moding me down because they don’t agree says more about them and their supposed “Freedom”.
Edited 2007-05-11 18:13
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
on Gnome
http://www.gnome.org/about/
Your a liar. It seems you do like GPL software. These are your comments and I didn’t delve too deep anyone can see them by simply clicking on your name.
BTW you can get a funky hoody http://gplv3.fsf.org/support
Edited 2007-05-11 18:32
“You’re” is a contraction for “you are.”
“Your” is a possessive pronoun, like “my,” “our,” and “their.”
“You’re” is a contraction for “you are.”
“Your” is a possessive pronoun, like “my,” “our,” and “their.”
Dear Spellcheck, this is Punctuationcheck. The comma and the point have to take place after the closing quotation mark. Your comment, which is correct in terms of content, should include correct punctuation and look like this:
“You’re” is a contraction for “you are”.
“Your” is a possessive pronoun, like “my”, “our”, and “their”.
NB, this is off-topic and for correction only. Mod down if needed.
No. I didn’t write that. You are deliberately misquoting me. I wrote that FSF is pro-DRM IF (There is a f–king IF!!!) it is used in a compatible way. FSF is anti-DRM if it used in a non-compatible ways.
FSF is not always against, nor always for DRM. It depends on how it is used. How hard is that to understand? It is a conditional anti-DRM stance, and a conditional pro-DRM stance. No playing with words – just straight facts.
The problem is that you want to make FSF look like they are unconditional opponents of DRM, and FSF is not so.
They have NEVER claimed that FSF is the spokesman of Open Source. That’s a outright lie! Look at this link: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html
FSF makes it clear that they are a different movement than Open Source. The Free Software Movement is a different movement than the Open Source Movement.
FSF is not talking about particularly YOUR freedom. They are talking about “you” in the sense of “the end user”. And as such they have every right to fight that battle. So does Microsoft for that matter. Anyway every body has the right to fight for the freedom of anyone. Nobody needs a permission for that.
Eeh? I specifically wrote that BSD/MIT-followers are objecting against proprietary licenses as well as the GPL. The OpenBSD devs are a good example of this. They are fiercely against anything proprietary and they are not exactly fond of the GPL. Personally I hold a position between Open Source and FSF, while acknowledging the constitutional right to create proprietary products. I disagree with the FSF about proprietary software being inherently bad. I don’t think it is true. It can be bad but it doesn’t have to be. It depends on the exact license. It only becomes bad when it restricts basic (constitutional) rights.
Do you use LGPL/MIT-libraries or do you develop LGPL/MIT libraries. I specifically wrote you used them (leeching).
No, you are being modded down for outright lying which is offensive. FSF is not unconditional anti-DRM as you have claimed. Nor have FSF claimed to be spokesman of Open Source.
Stop lying outright and start arguing truthfully for your opinions and the symptoms will go away.
BTW: I like the MIT license too. It is my favorite for using and developing software. It is so wonderfully simple. The LGPL is too complex – especially in regard to static linking (though I don’t mind if the product has a license exception for static linking).
Same here, I do think they are just playing with words.
“””
you dont seem to understand that the gpl version 3 has NO anti-DRM clauses.. read the damn article..
“””
I’ve read the damned article and many like it. Of course GPLv3 does not prohibit DRM. It only prohibits the DRM being effective.
The FSF’s double talk on that matter is slick enough that I imagine even Microsoft is impressed.
It does, however, lower my opinion of the FSF a bit.
I think the comparisons to between the fsf and Microsoft is totals rational. Their are lots of parallels between the two companies.
One being a Non-Profit organization who preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of all free software users.
And the other a mega corporation thats…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
Exactly how they not doing that by “GPL-covered works from being subjected to civil and criminal liability under anti-circumvention law for exercising their rights under the GPL to copy, modify, and share free software”
Its not these freedoms haven’t been about for years, prior to GPL3 was even discussed.
Edited 2007-05-11 22:03
That depends on what you are using DRM for. Preventing fair use rights (often impossible to surrender according to law (depends on the country)) or protecting fair use rights for customers.
The first one is a violation of GPL – the latter one is okay. And DRM can be used quite efficient as that.
Remember: DRM is really not about protecting copyrights and preventing piracy. As such DRM will always fail. DRM is in reality about changing the courts and peoples perception of IP making people believe they are only renting what they are actually buying.
“””
DRM is in reality about changing the courts and peoples perception of IP
“””
RMS would no doubt correct you on your use of the term “IP” and refuse to talk to you until you admitted you were wrong and started using proper terminology.
But I’ll give you a break here and talk to you, anyway.
I disagree about DRM not being intended to protect copyrights, and despite the fact that it can be circumvented by some, it most certainly does lock out normal folks to the point that its easier to buy the damned movie than to recruit the services of the local neighborhood boy who knows about computers and can hack into the network and get the movies for them.
I’m totally with the FSF in abhorring DRM. I just wish they would be more honest about what they are doing instead of denying it and trying to claim that they have no anti-DRM clause.
They do, and they should be forthright about the fact.
My solution to this whole issue has been simply not to watch movies. It’s really not that hard.
It’s a lot like diet. You like what you are *used* to. Get used to doing low fat, and you don’t crave fat. Get used to being vegetarian, and meat doesn’t seem so appealing anymore.
Stop being fed movies, and suddenly, other pursuits start seeming more worthwhile than vegetating in front of the silver screen.
I feel that my solution to the DRM problem is the most effective for me. Not only do the entertainment megacorps not get my money… but I don’t really even care anymore what they do because I don’t need them!
The conspiracy theory of silence from FSF about anti-DRM in the GPLv3 is amusing, but a simple google search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=anti-drm+gpl+sit…
shows many FSF uses of “anti-DRM” (“section”, “clause”, etc.) to refer the the GPLv3.
Maybe the theorists would have better luck accusing the FSF of being run by a loud-mouthed hippie.
“””
Maybe the theorists would have better luck accusing the FSF of being run by a loud-mouthed hippie.
“””
The FSF *is* run by a loud-mouthed hippie. That’s pretty much obvious to anyone isn’t it?
I don’t mean that as being necessarily a very negative thing. Just *possibly* a very negative thing.
Edited 2007-05-12 00:26
Actually, nothing has changed. People who don’t want to pay full price *still* get their copies from P2P networks and/or shady street vendors. DRM has done *nothing* to slow down piracy, because as soon as one copy has been cracked, the DRM has been nullified for that particular film/song/etc.
So, I disagree with you that it has made people less likely to obtain pirated copies. In fact, DRM annoys honest users (by causing the media not to play well under certain circumstances) but has virtually no impact on pirates at all.
Maybe for you, but for me and many others, that’s obviously not an option. It’s not about being vegetative, either: some movies and TV series are more than mere entertainment. They are works of art, and as such, they engage the viewer and provoke him.
Personally, I’ll continue doing what I do: being an honest DVD collector, but remaining opposed to any DRM scheme that contravenes to fair use rights. I will continue making small donations to those who fight the good fight, and hope that some political or legal action against DRM can eventually protect our rights as consumers. There’s really little else I can do.
The FSF’s double talk on that matter is slick enough that I imagine even Microsoft is impressed.
It does, however, lower my opinion of the FSF a bit.
Why? Is favoring precise terminology when discussing a legal document unethical? I have yet to see how “anti-DRM” is the best way to describe the clause in question. However, DRM supporters would favor such blanket terminology to describe v3, so it would be stupid for the FSF to favor it over more precise language.
“””
Is favoring precise terminology when discussing a legal document unethical? I have yet to see how “anti-DRM” is the best way to describe the clause in question.
“””
Anti-DRM is how it plays out in the real world.
I dislike DRM. I agree with the FSF’s motives.
But they really need to stop the “we’re really not anti-DRM” bullshit.
Edited 2007-05-12 00:14
>I dislike DRM. I agree with the FSF’s motives.
But they really need to stop the “we’re really not anti-DRM” bullshit.
You are mixing two differen points.
Yes, FSF is against DRM. And they doesn’t hide that, you can read that in many articles at gnu.org/philosophy or at defectivebydesign.org
But the license GPLv3 doesn’t have any general DRM clause! GPLv3 just protect the 4 freedoms so that you can always modify the software and of course run the modified version. Maybe this leads to prevent some form of DRM but it’s not a general anti DRM clause.
One example (from Linus Torvalds): Voting machines. The state buys computers with TC chips and has free voting software under the terms of the GPLv3. Now the state and maybe some representative of the people check the software if it is correct and doesn’t manipulate the election. Now they compile the software and sign it with the key stored in the TC Chip so that the machines will only run this version of the software and noone can change the software. This is DRM and it is allowed by GPLv3 because the owner of the software is also the owner of the keys and has full control over his system. Same for a company which uses DRM to make sure that his employees doesn’t install external software or any virus etc. can be installed through the internet. This is DRM too and also allowed by GPLv3.
Edited 2007-05-12 10:17
“you dont seem to understand that the gpl version 3 has NO anti-DRM clauses.. read the damn article..”
Yes it does no matter what the article says.
If the article contains misinformation, and it could well do. This is a legal document, and unfortunately an increasing complicated one, *look* at the comments on the FSF draft.
It is too complicated, because it has to be. GPL violations are all too common, and not accounted for in earlier versions. Layers are expensive, the good ones *earn* there money becuase this is hard. Its a shame really because the *spirit* of GPL2 was pretty clear. Its a shame.
But if you have information that points out something different, or have noticed something that can be misinterpreted…point it out, do not feel shy. An off the cuff remark will not cut it.
Even Linus is pretty happy with the latest revision. The only article I have seen that hasn’t liked the latest GPL3 draft is one stating that it failed to effectively cover Web based applications, and *if* it doesn’t I think that needs to be addressed. I think there is an interview with Stallman somewhere where *he* thinks it needs to go further, and some parts have been softened.
Edited 2007-05-12 02:06
Even Linus is pretty happy with the latest revision. The only article I have seen that hasn’t liked the latest GPL3 draft is one stating that it failed to effectively cover Web based applications, and *if* it doesn’t I think that needs to be addressed. I think there is an interview with Stallman somewhere where *he* thinks it needs to go further, and some parts have been softened.
Two points:
1. Alan Cox is also keener on the latest draft:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/05/10/223693/linux-guru…
2. To address web apps, the FSF has decided to start drafting AGPLv2 (“Affero”) and will submit it for comments like they did with the GPLv3 drafts:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-29-gplv3-saas
Edited 2007-05-12 02:24
Sorry I should have been more clear about what I don’t like. I still have a problem with:
“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
Specifically the fact that authorization keys (that most likely would interact with hardware, or be used as part of a subscription service are considered source code.
I think most people are calling this the “anti-tivoization” clause, so I was wrong in labeling my first post anti-drm. My bad.
>>I think most people are calling this the “anti-tivoization” clause, so I was wrong in labeling my first post anti-drm. My bad.<<
Well, as what the tivoization did was a form of DRM, calling this clause anti-DRM is correct IMHO: it’s true that the GPLv3 is anti-some kinds of DRM, so saying the opposite is false IMHO.
The article was still very fuzzy, IMHO instead of talking about generalities, it should explain what the GPLv3 means for voting machines, etc.
Apparently while the GPLv3 will prevent tivoization, I’m not sure that it’ll have any real world effects as there are other easy workarounds: for example, the French ISP ‘Free’ to avoid having to disclose the source included in their ADSL modem (which run Linux), they rent you the ADSL modem and you cannot buy them..
I think the original version of the DRM clause was the best worded. The second draft was terrible. There’s two separate issues. It focuses on one thing… Using YOUR version of the code on the device!
First is the DMCA. Companies like Tivo were hiding behind the DMCA to make their devices private. Not necessarily Tivo, but they would use GNU, publish the source code, but not ALL of the code, you couldn’t actually USE the code provided to operate the equipment because of encryption in hardware. If you try to publish how to make the code work they slap the ISP with a DMCA takedown. The response was better worded in revision 1 where it was clear that the company had to provide A (one) encryption key to make the source code work if the system used hardware encryption. There were several key ommisions from the revision 1 that made it better than the other 2. First, the key provided didn’t HAVE to the REAL key… the clause only said all the hardware features had to work.
The second issue is encryption keys: There for in a case like Tivo with other people’s data, they would not be compromising that data and get in trouble. The second revision went way overboard (or was very poorly worded) trying to require “THE” key that would unlock encrypted data… the keys were supposed to allow operation of the device. I understand allowing the device to operate on any networks, but that’s a domain outside the GPL. I think they removed that in rev3. Again, this was to stop companies from only giving you half the info to make the device work. The clause NEEDS to be there, but much better worded.
GPLv2, and now you throw GPLv3 at us!
Your comment seems very much like a troll, but to respond, GPLv3 is intended to address concerns and questions raised by GPLv2. It may not address everything perfectly, but legal issues are often difficult to address perfectly. I don’t necessarily agree with the everything in GPLv3, but I give the FSF credit for trying to make it a good license.
Personally I’m not against the goal of the GPL v3. The goals are quite logical considering the four freedoms. And since the license is meant to protect those four freedoms the license cannot be much different than it is.
However: I do complain about the language used. It is too longwinded and difficult to understand. And unnecessarily so. OTOH, I don’t think it can be fixed for a long time, though moving the four freedoms from the preamble to the actual license might make that easier (though perhaps not in USA).
GPL2 was simple, easy to understand and successfully protects free software in all but a few fringe cases (which are not a significant threat).
In trying to cover all possible present and future avenues of exploitation of the GPL, GPL3 is unclear, unwieldy, worryingly open-ended and will hurt free software more than it protects it.
The Cutter
>GPL2 was simple, easy to understand and successfully protects free software in all but a few fringe cases (which are not a significant threat).
I think GPLv3 is also easy to understand.
As a normal person you just have to follow this spirit: “The license gives me the 4 freedoms defined by FSF and by everything i do i have to take care that all my recipients will get the same 4 freedoms. I can’t remove this freedoms in any way (e.g. license changing, distribute only binaries, using patents to remove the freedoms, using technology to remove the freedoms,..)”
I think it’s fairly simple. Just don’t remove the 4 freedoms.
Of course if you searching for holes you could explore than you should be an expert in reading licenses to find and understand them. But if you just want to comply, it’s rather easy.
Edited 2007-05-11 19:13
As a reminder, the four freedoms are here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
No one has ever explained how the GPLv2 protects the four freedoms at least as effectively as any of the GPLv3 drafts. Indeed, v3 addresses loopholes in v2. Anyone whose priority is those freedoms will seriously consider v3. If they see problems in the draft, they should consider suggesting improvements.
Otherwise, the anti-v3 BS spouted here suggests that v3 is upsetting vested interests who oppose free software supporters needing an _option_ to best safeguard the freedoms. The drafting process is not some stupid popularity contest, but what the free software community _expects_ the FSF to do to represent their interests.
Well, the article looks more like confirmation of those missunderstandings. It leaves an impression that most of missunderstandings are facts, more or less.
AS LONG AS MICRO$$$SHAFT DOESNT MAKE MONIES OFF OF SOWTWAREZ I’M HAPPY. ASKING FOR MONIES FOR WORK IS SO GEAORGHE W BUSH AMERIKKKA! im sorry for the rant but i jus get so sick of micros$$$$$$oft!!!
oSNEWs STOP POSTING ARTICLES BOUT WIN-DOZE!!!
i InstALLed UbiNTyU on mY PPc and I am SO GLADDDD i DONT have TO deAL WITH WIN-DOZE aniMOre LOL
GPLv3 is extending its concern beyond software and attempting to control business practices
It, like all software licenses, is little more than a overglorified EULA, and is also little more than trying to use a loophole in contract law to do exactly that – arguing otherwise is just special. (see olympics). Being that on the whole anyone with a degree in business can see that the FSF is anti-capitolist, this is hardly an unlikely conclusion for someone to draw, and far from incorrect.
The new patent language could make GPLv3 unenforceable
Hell, GPL2 and every other EULA/software license should be unenforcable because LEGALLY they should have all the standing of a unsigned pre-nuptual agreement. Of course, being the whole thing is based on Stallman’s sour grapes over the fact he GAVE SOMETHING AWAY… I still say if you are going to give something away, give it the **** away and be ready to get screwed if someone else is able to do something useful with it. Attempting to maintain control of something you are giving away is just stupid, I don’t care HOW you color it. They claim to be for freedom, then like any good commie uses word of law to remove those freedoms – in the name of freedom – RIGHT. Read the FSF’s page, then read Marx’s manifesto… Difference? (oh wait, Stallman whines more, akin to Sun Tzu’s Art of war – thirteen chapters bitching about not being able to get a government job)
Companies will be forced to open their patent portfolios if they use GPLv3
NOW we get to something MEANINGFUL – and in this case the rumors are total bull – as the article correctly points out. IF the code for each is separate and does not interact, there is no reason you shouldn’t be able to mix and match licenses, restrictions, etc. WHERE people got the idea that even including a GPL3 means you have to open up everything else you have is just… well… I lack the words.
The proposed grandfather clause gives Novell an advantage over other companies
No, it just means that all you need to do is stay with GPL2 – hell, since Novells deal was for a GPL2 project, you really think they are going to switch ANY of it to three? They’ll fork first. See why 90% of *nix users now use x.org instead of xfree.
GPLv3 prohibits digital rights management (DRM) technologies
That whole section is a /fail/ hard of philosophy. Good luck with DVD’s under GPLv3… This is a case where MOST people don’t care, and the people who do care are pirates. **** ’em.
The definition of “user product” will make GPLv3 inapplicable outside the United States
If it is defined in the license, it is applicable if said license is found legal – that simple.
You won’t be able to run GPLv3 programs with a GPLv2 kernel
What the? Now that’s just stupid. The only place that should even be an issue is drivers akin to the FSF’s rabid anti-binary driver bull, and that would more likely be an issue of GPL2 atop GPL3, not the other way around. It comes down to can said program be considered a ‘derivative work’ – a vague definition at best.
GPLv3 will cause a proliferation of different licenses
Because of course, we don’t already have that now.
Edited 2007-05-12 19:31
EULA is just that an End User License Agreement. Although if must be pointed the Difference between say Vista’s EULA and GPL3 is EULA limits Vista use from everything to how many processors you can use; how you are allowed alter your machine; whether you can run benchmarks; how many copies your allowed to run; Whether its tied to the one machine; Whether you can run it on a Virtual Machine etc etc.
Where GPL3 is about being able to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software. Its not really the same thing. Although what this has to do with hero’s who have to live with adversity every day of their life’s is lost on me.
Is GPL3 unenforceable, you haven’t said why? If you could post why that would really help. I’m not sure comparing it to a unsigned pre-nuptial disagreements is helpful, but yes Dick thinks that if you share code with someone, they should share the resulting code too. Seems fair enough. GPL3 just enforces this.
I’m pretty certain that with patents. If you believe in the concept of Intellectual property(sic) then you will also believe the original author of the GPL code is sharing his Intellectual property along as his code, so those who add to their code add should share their intellectual property. The revision in GPL3 that they are all talking about, is the author of the original Intellectual property can still sell his intellectual property in closed applications. In reality this is how it happens between companies holding large patent portfolios now. Its to stop a loophole that would disallow others using GPL code even though it was available, by saying a potion of the code is patented.
Xorg was created out out of a fork over a disagreement over a license, and thank heavens for that. XFree had been stagnating for years. Since then we have enjoyed massive improvements overall, a modular X, and a compositing desktop…forks of a project does mean things don’t get better. If Novell wants to keep their code under GPL2 and thats what’s right for them they *should* do so. People should choose the license thats best for them.
DRM does not prohibit playback of DVD’s whats stopps playback of DVD’s is a legal!? way to do so on a Linux computer. This is a major problem in Linux overall and I would be happy for anyone to suggest a solution. The DRM in question is a loophole in GPL2 that currently does not allow you to replace DRM encumbered *binaries* of GPL code with a version you say *compiled* yourself. All the benefits of having a DRM binary are in place. The only extra think is you get the keys!? to replace the binary with.
If the term “user product” will make it inapplicable outside the United state you should say why, as I’m pretty certain if true thats a great oversight, as this does need to be a worldwide license. I simply cannot see why it shouldn’t be from those two words.
I’m absolutely certain that you can run programs, with the GPL2 kernel thats just silly. How is GCC a derivative work, by any stretch of the definition. Does it use kernel code.
GPL2 is currently the standard for the majority of software products under an open source license. Although it does not have the same kind of License splintering as the the propriety software world where every product has a different license. Although I don’t know why having lots of licenses; is any better or worse than one. Its to do with the quality of the License in question, and whether the license is right for the author of the original code. For those who like the four freedoms, and the development model that comes with open source will like the GP3 license.
Edited 2007-05-12 20:36