Bring on gpl v3

[frup]

Hey I'm no expert on GPL etc, but from what my understanding is, I ONLY WANT FREE SOFTWARE.

The whole Microsoft Novel thing scares me and it's made me value free software so much more, I'm planning to get rid of anything proprietary now.. e.g. flash.

From what I've read the GPL v3 is:

Anti DRM
Stops Kernal hacks to allow NON GPL software. (Novel does this and now it looks like its going to get scarier)
Increases our freedom

The downside is Video drivers and codecs etc. I'm not using any of them at the moment though because I'm on an old computer since my main one is broke

I know most of you won't care what I have to say :)

[DoctorMO]

On one side there is the idea that you should be allowed to do anything you want regardless of your responsibilties to your fellows or the creators (i.e like the BSD) on the other side is the GPL where freedom is guarded by the enforcement of resposibilty and respect for other peoples work.

Allowing kernel hacks is not in the best interests of te kernel, it's already protected quite a bit.

Personaly codecs and formats that are undocumented should not be used. codecs or formats that can not be implimented without using patented methods should be illial under the entrapment laws (encrypting someones data in a format only the company has real access to could be considered blackmail)

GPLv3 is a good move to clear up the intention of the GPL, the fact that parties don't agree about certain parts just goes to show you the kinds of freedom we've gotten used to having. and all thats good.

[frup]

I'd feel a great sense of relief about the future if we had GPLv3 now.

[weatherman]

I think you are confusing a couple of things.
There's nothing against drm in the gpl v3. Actually you could write software with digital restrictions management under the gpl v3. What the gpl v3 states is that you have to provide the user with the means to modify the software to suit his needs and to actually run the modified software on the hardware you've sold him.
Funny thing is that a lot of people that were skeptical about this are now switching sides. So far RMS has pretty much always been right in the long run, let's see how this one goes, IMHO there are good arguments on both sides.
As far as the kernel goes it is very unlikely that it will be relicensed under v3, therefore there will be very little changes on that side. What the gpl v3 states though is that software under gpl v3 has to be redistributed under v3, therefore you won't be able to mix up gpl v2 only software and gpl v3 software.

[SunnyRabbiera]

There is nothing wrong with proprietary stuff either.
Take Opera for example, proprietary yes but its one of the best web browsers out there today.
I think people are going a little too extreme with the anti proprietary stuff as I know if some proprietary stuff is banned my saitek controller and a couple of other things will never work.
I like GPL v2 as opposed to GPL v3, GPL v3 seems too strict and unfriendly.

[weatherman]

I like GPL v2 as opposed to GPL v3, GPL v3 seems too strict and unfriendly.
why do you have this opinion?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well I read it over and rather felt that GPL v3 was just too hostile twards proprietary stuff.
The thing is that I would like co operation with some proprietary stuff, like MP3, flash, even some microsoft formats.
I dont see any problems with having a linux varient that is able to support proprietary stuff, even if I did have to pay for it as long as it works I am good.
If Ubuntu had a nonfree version that included some proprietary stuff like support for MP3's and flash I would happily pay for it in a heartbeat as unlike most paid distros ubuntu works for me.

[DoctorMO]

What the gpl v3 states though is that software under gpl v3 has to be redistributed under v3, therefore you won't be able to mix up gpl v2 only software and gpl v3 software.

You will because distrobution of apples does not limit the distrobution of oranges even if they are in the same box.

[weatherman]

You will because distrobution of apples does not limit the distrobution of oranges even if they are in the same box.
you can for example package them up in the same distribution, but you can't mix the code of two programs under different licenses.

[Rhapsody]

Well I read it over and rather felt that GPL v3 was just too hostile twards proprietary stuff.

I don't see it being any more unfriendly than the GPLv2 already is. Aside from DRM of course, but that is just nasty anyway.


The thing is that I would like co operation with some proprietary stuff, like MP3, flash, even some microsoft formats.

You can do most of that already, some with free software and others (notably Flash) with proprietary software. The GPLv3 isn't going to change that.


I dont see any problems with having a linux varient that is able to support proprietary stuff, even if I did have to pay for it as long as it works I am good.

Linspire, Xandros, et al will still be perfectly capable of bundling proprietary software as much as they like. I've seen nothing about the GPLv3 that would stop you using software under any licence (free or proprietary) with a GPLv3-licenced OS.


If Ubuntu had a nonfree version that included some proprietary stuff like support for MP3's and flash I would happily pay for it in a heartbeat as unlike most paid distros ubuntu works for me.

Why on earth would anyone pay for a version of Ubuntu with bundled proprietary stuff? I already have full MP3 and Flash support on my current Kubuntu system. I've even got an MP3 playing on Amarok right now. The key to this is called repositories.

Really. Pay some money, or spent a few minutes installing some extra packages? Sounds rather dumb to do the former when the latter is so easy.

[kuja]

Just a side note for anyone who does not know, and unfortunately I don't have a reference to point at at the moment (edit: on second though I do: http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6031504.html, but I recall that Linus Torvalds has stated that the Linux kernel itself will not be moving to the GPL v3. Just a tidbit for anyone who's curious.

[bonzodog]

Well, for those of you that want to try a GNU-only distro, the FSF have released an ubuntu based one called GNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org/).

Give it a try and tell us what you think.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I don't see it being any more unfriendly than the GPLv2 already is. Aside from DRM of course, but that is just nasty anyway.



You can do most of that already, some with free software and others (notably Flash) with proprietary software. The GPLv3 isn't going to change that.



Linspire, Xandros, et al will still be perfectly capable of bundling proprietary software as much as they like. I've seen nothing about the GPLv3 that would stop you using software under any licence (free or proprietary) with a GPLv3-licenced OS.



Why on earth would anyone pay for a version of Ubuntu with bundled proprietary stuff? I already have full MP3 and Flash support on my current Kubuntu system. I've even got an MP3 playing on Amarok right now. The key to this is called repositories.

Really. Pay some money, or spent a few minutes installing some extra packages? Sounds rather dumb to do the former when the latter is so easy.

Well the nonfree version would be there so you can have MP3/DVD/wincodecs legally... they are getting tougher on that kind of thing so i rather my libDVDcss or win32 codecs be legal.

[Rhapsody]

Well the nonfree version would be there so you can have MP3/DVD/wincodecs legally... they are getting tougher on that kind of thing so i rather my libDVDcss or win32 codecs be legal.

Well the GPLv3 isn't going to change any of that. So what exactly <i>is</i> your objection to the GPLv3 anyway?

[deanlinkous]

Well, I predict we will see a v3 linux kernel! Bet my life on it.

[robotzu2]

I like GPLv2 and I think GPLv3 will be a big problem....

[robotzu2]

Well, I predict we will see a v3 linux kernel! Bet my life on it.

That's impossible because linus has announced that linux kernel will only have a GPLv2 version.

[deanlinkous]

Well if linus has said so... ;)

[DoctorMO]

robotz there is nothing stopping anyone distrobuting the linux kernel under gplv3 it'll also be available under gplv2 from the kernel guys but that doesn't stop us putting it under v3... a bit pointless maybe but there you are.

[Rhapsody]

robotz there is nothing stopping anyone distrobuting the linux kernel under gplv3 it'll also be available under gplv2 from the kernel guys but that doesn't stop us putting it under v3... a bit pointless maybe but there you are.

Yes there is. The GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible with each other, and Linus Torvalds has specifically licenced his contributions under the GPLv2. All code exclusively licenced under the GPLv2 must be relicenced or removed before the Linux kernel could be distributed under the GPLv3.

[.t.]

There could either be a fork, or we are all forced to use the HURD.

Otherwise, I'm very pro-v3

[Anonii]

Well if linus has said so... ;)
Indeed...

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/wp-content/ep041.jpg

Sources, references, etc. (http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/sandals-not-flip-flops)

[robotzu2]

ANTI-DRM is the biggest problem in GPLv3. Without DRM, Linux will never have a high market share. I mean Desktop.

[.t.]

anti-drm is the biggest asset to gplv3. Learn about it. Read my essays. Read others' essays. It's a very important topic.

[frup]

I see it as something that will ensure freedom. I see it as good corporate exploitation prevention. I would hate to see an Embrace Extend Extinguish happening. Look at oracle they seem to be trying :P The only way to stop that is to force them to be nice or go closed. That's if my perspective is right of course.

[awakatanka]

Doesn't matter what we think it does matter what linus is going to do. At this moment he isn't going to change to v3.

[steven8]

I also read the interview where Linus openly said that he believes DRM is okay. :-( I have look through my history to find the link. . .

Here it is: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/4/23/365 Well, not 'truly' okay, but is convinced we have to allow it.

[carlgm]

DRM can be okay. It really depends how it is done.

[steven8]

That's kind of what Linus was saying.

[.t.]

DRM can never be okay.

[carlgm]

Why?

[deanlinkous]

Well, Linus is not the only one with a say in this and he has been known to change his mind a time or two.

Second, the GPL is not ANTI-anything it is simple PRO-software freedoms and always has been. Now something has been created that is in direct contridiction to software freedoms so actually DRM is ANTI-software freedoms.

DRM is bad IMO. But I understand the other side of the issue and I think even v3 allows some provisions that SHOULD make both sides happy if everyone would take the time to read it and understand it. I mean if the kernel devs do not care if tivo takes the code and "rigs" it then who am I to say otherwise. BUT how do I get my software freedom from this? Simple, I have a copy of the exact same code. So Tivo (or whoever) could have their copy that they use encrytion to lock it up and program it to explode and yet I have a copy as well that I do not wish to do that with.

Both sides at least get some satisfaction.

I am anti-drm the gpl is not! ;)

[steven8]

Well, Linus is not the only one with a say in this

I didn't think we was, but folks tend to take his thoughts on the matter with some bit of seriousness.

I read the recent draft of the GPLv3. It doesn't read that bad too me. It is the choice of the creator under which license to release it, of course. Such is the freedom we speak of.

[kuja]

Well, Linus is not the only one with a say in this and he has been known to change his mind a time or two.

Second, the GPL is not ANTI-anything it is simple PRO-software freedoms and always has been. Now something has been created that is in direct contridiction to software freedoms so actually DRM is ANTI-software freedoms.

DRM is bad IMO. But I understand the other side of the issue and I think even v3 allows some provisions that SHOULD make both sides happy if everyone would take the time to read it and understand it. I mean if the kernel devs do not care if tivo takes the code and "rigs" it then who am I to say otherwise. BUT how do I get my software freedom from this? Simple, I have a copy of the exact same code. So Tivo (or whoever) could have their copy that they use encrytion to lock it up and program it to explode and yet I have a copy as well that I do not wish to do that with.

Both sides at least get some satisfaction.

I am anti-drm the gpl is not! ;)

He's not alone in the disliking of the terms of the gpl v3 - http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6119372.html?tag=nl

Much of the controversy regarding drm + patents is because the gpl v3 in fact DOES try to deal with them. One argument against the gpl v3 being that it shouldn't.

Another issue some have with it, AFAIK, is that the GPL v2 had a clause saying that the gpl itself cannot be modified to include extra terms, and well, the gpl v3 in its current state does quite the opposite, or something like that.

[deanlinkous]

I wonder if the new license said exactly the same thing as the old license if it would be better received? Of course, wouldn't be much point to it then would it. ;)

betting a $100 virtual dollars we have a gplv3 kernel!

[AgenT]

As should be expected, there is misinformation about the current GPLv3 draft (notice, it's still a draft). Also, just because Linus says one thing right now, does mean he is not mistaken or will not switch to GPLv3 at a later time.

The GPLv3 has some very large improvements, especially the one where the legality of the GPLv2 is based on US laws and practices and patent laws.

Taken from FSF:

GPLv3: recent misleading information

The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which recent discussion has presented inaccurate information.

1. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code. We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we would not have this power. Software developers will continue to have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is published, and we will respect their decisions.

2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it.

Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either.

GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are.

3. Where GPLv2 relies on an implicit patent license, which depends on US law, GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license that does the same job internationally.

Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement.