GPLv3 Released

[23meg]

Richard Stallman is announcing the release right now; catch the live stream at http://livestream.fsf.org:8800/.

[@trophy]

Richard Stallman is announcing the release right now; catch the live stream at http://livestream.fsf.org:8800/.


Damn I wish I wasn't at work right now...

[Pobega]

Is his announcement over already? I think I missed it.

[jiminycricket]

Yep, it was short, about 5 minutes or so.

EDIT:

All that the GPL does is promote Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) through copyleft. Copyright is what is restrictive.


Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* 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.

[23meg]

http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched

[Adamant1988]

In other news... so did the iPhone ;)

[forrestcupp]

Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it.

Prohibit + Prevent <> Freedom

I don't like patent deals, but I also don't like how they are restricting who can distribute software and governing how an organization runs its business. It's just as bad as MS telling people who can use what and how.

It seems like if you don't hate Microsoft, you're not welcome to distribute GPLv3 software.

[Adamant1988]

Prohibit + Prevent <> Freedom

I don't like patent deals, but I also don't like how they are restricting who can distribute software and governing how an organization runs its business. It's just as bad as MS telling people who can use what and how.

It seems like if you don't hate Microsoft, you're not welcome to distribute GPLv3 software.

The FSF's idea of freedom is to lock you in a room by yourself, but they remove the handcuffs.

[az]

Prohibit + Prevent <> Freedom

I don't like patent deals, but I also don't like how they are restricting who can distribute software and governing how an organization runs its business. It's just as bad as MS telling people who can use what and how.

It seems like if you don't hate Microsoft, you're not welcome to distribute GPLv3 software.

It is not specific to microsoft. Microsoft is not mentioned in the document. Who gives a rat's *** about microsoft?

And no one is telling you what you can and cannot run. You said it yourself in your quote: "you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the..." What is says is that you cannot distribute something under the GPLv3 if you have made a patent deal.

Patents and patent deals take away your freedom and software freedom is what the GPL is supposed to protect. Regardless of what any license says. software patents are not compatible with software freedom. So what it boils down to is saying you are prohibited from calling your software free when it is truly not free.

This affects the person who wants to release code under the GPL. Not the users of the code.

I'm really sick of how people misinterperet this.

EDIT: You can't have it both ways. You can't release sofware as free software but them make it non-free by using patents. The license simply makes it clear that that's a contradiction. You wanna cry that you don't have the right to mislead your customers? Sorry. No pitty from me.

Are you going to complain about laws which prohibit your local supermarket from selling food that has gone past the expiration date? The GPL isn't even as severe as that. If you want to compare non-free software to expired food, the GPL doesn't prevent you from selling bad food, if just prevents you from selling it as fresh. No one is preventing anybody from distributing their code. You just can't distribute it under the GPL is it ain't free.

[jiminycricket]

Even Wall Street loves the GPLv3 :D (thanks to Groklaw), and they're not Microsoft haters. I don't think they'll mind if I reproduce the whole article here.

http://www.sifma.org/news/47167838.shtml


GNU-Linux Software License Revision Praised By SIFMA

WASHINGTON, DC, June 27, 2007 –The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) today commended the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center for their significant work in introducing Version 3 of the General Public License (GPL).

The GPL is the software license governing the GNU-Linux operating system as well as other software that is widely utilized within the private and public sectors, including many SIFMA members. Financial service firms ranging from investment banks to commercial banks utilize the GNU-Linux operating system as a platform for trading systems, databases and market data systems.

SIFMA believes that the objectives of the free and open source software community can be achieved consistently and in collaboration with the needs of large end-users, including those in the financial services industries. SIFMA thanks the foundation for its consideration of the views of SIFMA members and looks forward to the publication of the final version of the GPL.

- 30 -

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association brings together the shared interests of more than 650 securities firms, banks and asset managers. SIFMA's mission is to promote policies and practices that work to expand and perfect markets, foster the development of new products and services and create efficiencies for member firms, while preserving and enhancing the public's trust and confidence in the markets and the industry. SIFMA works to represent its members’ interests locally and globally. It has offices in New York, Washington D.C., and London and its associated firm, the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, is based in Hong Kong.

[forrestcupp]

I'm really sick of how people misinterperet this.

You just can't distribute it under the GPL is it ain't free.

I didn't misinterpret it. It isn't talking just about releasing code, it's talking about distributing it. There is a difference. If code is already released under GPLv3, I can't distribute it under some other license. So if I'm a company like Novell, not only can I not release new code under this license, but I can't even distribute code that has already been released.

Novell didn't take out patents on any software when they made that deal. They just made a deal to protect their customers from Microsoft, the patent holder. If Novell tried to have a software patent and release the same software under GPLv3, that would be a different story. But that isn't the case.

So FSF is telling businesses they can't offer their customers protection and distribute their software.

Disclaimer: I'm not for the patent deals, I just don't like this part of the license.

[matthinckley]

Right Novell didn't take out any patents on anything, they took money from microsoft to make a deal with microsoft to protect linux users from patent lawsuits by microsoft which would never happen anyways.. the whole point of the deal was to add to microsofts fud campaign and that is what the GPLv3 forbids.

[saulgoode]

So FSF is telling businesses they can't offer their customers protection and distribute their software.

The FSF is only publishing a license under which copyright holders may or may not choose to release their software. I am not sure if your intent was to suggest that the GPLed code somehow belonged to the "businesses" but rest assured, it does not.

[forrestcupp]

The FSF is only publishing a license under which copyright holders may or may not choose to release their software. I am not sure if your intent was to suggest that the GPLed code somehow belonged to the "businesses" but rest assured, it does not.

No, that wasn't my intent. I know that Novell doesn't own the software any more than Canonical does or I do. Out of all the people that distribute GPLed software, I think it's crazy that the FSF is saying certain people/companies aren't allowed to even distribute the software because the FSF doesn't like the way they run their business.

About the FUD thing. Of course it's FUD, everyone knows that. Of course it's not really going to happen. But if I am a business that can't afford a lawsuit, it's natural for me to shy away from something that looks like it could possibly bring a lawsuit. So even though companies like Novell know that nothing will probably happen, they know it's a lot easier to convince someone they are safe by offering legal protection than it is to just try to speak logic and tell them it will be ok. It's called "putting your money where your mouth is."

When Novell starts taking out patents on software ideas, then they will be the bad guy. I don't necessarily think they are the bad guy for wanting to protect their customers and their business.

[starcraft.man]

It's called "putting your money where your mouth is."

You got that idiom wrong, this is the definition exerted from an idiom dictionary:
To support something that you believe in, especially by giving money. Example, if people are really interested in helping the homeless they should put their money where their mouth is (i.e. volunteer at the shelter, soup kitchen).

In your case, I think the idiom you were looking for is "Novell copped out". Meaning, they took the easy and safe way sacrificing their ideals/integrity (of FLOSS) for the sake of their profits.


When Novell starts taking out patents on software ideas, then they will be the bad guy. I don't necessarily think they are the bad guy for wanting to protect their customers and their business.

And therein you and the FSF disagree. By paying for protection, they give at the very least the appearance of legitimacy and endorsement of the software patents in question (and by extension the entire software patent system as a whole, which the FSF seeks to stamp out), even if they publicly live in a bubble and deny it while MS goes "SEE! Novell gave us patent money, it must be legitimate." You can't have it both ways if your trying to get something done, you can't let them cut deals to protect them from patents and also at the same time speak out against patents as a system and want them done away with. IMO, thats hypocritical don't you think?

The bottom line is that companies have proven in recent years (generalization from what I seen, I know they are sometimes flawed), at least in my eyes that they will sacrifice anything to turn a greater profit. It seems thats all they care about, maybe Novell is no different seeing how easily they signed a deal to protect their customers and label themselves "safe linux". From what I've read I'd agree the GPL is restrictive, in so far as it attempts to dissuade and prevent abuses of the liberties FLOSS has. It's a terrible and back stabbing world out there, and companies will use any advantage they can, thus you have to eliminate their options rather than allow them to.

Novell is an unfortunate case, they are trying to play both sides. People who do that, usually end up worse than when they started, numerous other examples exist to support that.

In any case, there is a solution if you don't like the GPL at all, the BSD license.

Edit: One thing you failed to take into account btw, like Mark S noted on his blog... is that deals with MS regarding patents aren't bullet proof. Not all of the patents raised are owned by MS, and that means that pure IP holder companies (companies who exist and make revenue solely on IP licenses) still can sue Novell and other companies that cut deals. It's a false sense of security.

[hanzomon4]

If Novell wants to distribute code with the added pseudo protection of this kind of deal fine, but don't compromise GPL code. Thats what these deals do, it implies that GPL code is in some way illegal to use unless you have protection from MS. In the long term you only legitimize the threats of the paper tiger to businesses, not good.

This is the license of the FSF and apparently it's pretty good because developers still use it and Gnu/Linux continues to improve. Novell or any other Distributor should play by the rules of the GPL or simply refuse to distribute GPL code. Correct me if I'm wrong but the v3 doesn't affect deals made prior to March 28, 2007, right? Thats a cool compromise, Novell and MS were able to make the deal under v2 this was seen as bad and corrected in v3, however the deals made under the old rules were not penalized. That sounds fair to me.

[forrestcupp]

In any case, there is a solution if you don't like the GPL at all, the BSD license.
That is a solution if I want to release software, but if I want to distribute someone else's software, it's not really an option.

I don't hate the GPL. I just disagree with governing who can distribute software. The GPL shouldn't govern who can distribute software, but rather how they distribute it. It's possible to be in league with Microsoft, but still distribute GPL in a free manner (include the source & license, and allow others to modify and distribute in a like manner as long as they don't change the license).


Edit: One thing you failed to take into account btw, like Mark S noted on his blog... is that deals with MS regarding patents aren't bullet proof. Not all of the patents raised are owned by MS, and that means that pure IP holder companies (companies who exist and make revenue solely on IP licenses) still can sue Novell and other companies that cut deals. It's a false sense of security.

That's true, but right now, Microsoft is the most likely to cause problems. When another problem arises, you deal with it.

[starcraft.man]

That is a solution if I want to release software, but if I want to distribute someone else's software, it's not really an option.

I don't hate the GPL. I just disagree with governing who can distribute software. The GPL shouldn't govern who can distribute software, but rather how they distribute it. It's possible to be in league with Microsoft, but still distribute GPL in a free manner (include the source & license, and allow others to modify and distribute in a like manner as long as they don't change the license).


Well, I don't see the FSF changing viewpoints on that, so the only option I see is for you or someone you know to make your own license and convince people to use it. Or you should file complaint with the FSF (or better yet have spoken during the inception of the GPL3, there were open comments).


That's true, but right now, Microsoft is the most likely to cause problems. When another problem arises, you deal with it.

Really? When was the last time MS sued someone for IP infringement? Or anything for that matter? You can pick any date, from the beginning. I can't think of a single time. In fact, MS is the one to be scared, their the big bloated target that has BEEN sued by many IP firms and companys (even whole governments, the EU is one). They are also the ones who have settled numerous times for billions (or at least hundreds of millions) of dollars in licensing

[hanzomon4]

I don't hate the GPL. I just disagree with governing who can distribute software. The GPL shouldn't govern who can distribute software, but rather how they distribute it. It's possible to be in league with Microsoft, but still distribute GPL in a free manner (include the source & license, and allow others to modify and distribute in a like manner as long as they don't change the license).


The FSF is not saying who can distribute GPL code, they only say that you can't distribute the code if you enter into one of these deals. Hints it's all about how and not at all about who.

[Polygon]

i read a news article yesterday that linus "hinted" at releasing the linux kernel under gplv3, because sun is also hinting that they will release solaris under gplv3.... it should be interesting to see how this turns out

[starcraft.man]

i read a news article yesterday that linus "hinted" at releasing the linux kernel under gplv3, because sun is also hinting that they will release solaris under gplv3.... it should be interesting to see how this turns out

LOL! I'd like to read that article. Last I heard Linus was mostly against the wording of the GPLv3, although I get the impression he agrees with the goal just not how they doing it.

[saulgoode]

I don't hate the GPL. I just disagree with governing who can distribute software. The GPL shouldn't govern who can distribute software, but rather how they distribute it. It's possible to be in league with Microsoft, but still distribute GPL in a free manner (include the source & license, and allow others to modify and distribute in a like manner as long as they don't change the license).

I fail to understand your concern. The FSF/GPL doesn't single out particular companies and say "you can't make deals with so-and-so". The GPL 3 is just a license for software authors to choose if they wish. There is no obligation for authors to choose the license and there is no obligation for Novell (or any other company) to accept the terms of license (and if Novell is the author, they choose whether or not to release under the GPL).

But without accepting the terms of a software license, Novell (just using them as an example) has NO right to distribute that software. This no different from any other copyright licensing: unless specified otherwise, "all rights are reserved" by the copyright holder. There is nothing wrong with placing some restrictions on those who wish to distribute this copyrighted software, that is what a license does. You may dislike that there are patent restrictions placed in a copyright license because they don't have anything to do with "rights to copy" but the situation is no different from exacting monetary compensation (which has nothing to do with "rights to copy") or forbidding reverse-engineering efforts which are common aspects of "proprietary" licenses.

In most cases, the right to distribute copyrighted material is outright forbidden. Just because the GPL does not completely forbid distribution does not mean that the copyright holders are overstepping their bounds in what they do ask.

It seems ironic to me that copyright authors who offer their software under quite generous licensing terms are perceived as hindering others from distributing copies; while everyone seems quite able to recognize that others can't, for example, market copies of Windows without obtaining proper redistribution rights. The principles are the same in both cases: without the license, you have no right to redistribute. If you can't abide by the licensing terms of a piece of software then you should look for a different source of software.

[justin whitaker]

LOL! I'd like to read that article. Last I heard Linus was mostly against the wording of the GPLv3, although I get the impression he agrees with the goal just not how they doing it.

Linus is apparently reconsidering since Schwartz posted in his blog that they find GPLv3 to be fine, and plan on releasing their code under it. It's over on OSNews, Schwartz's blog, and widely reported.

[forrestcupp]

Really? When was the last time MS sued someone for IP infringement? Or anything for that matter? You can pick any date, from the beginning. I can't think of a single time. In fact, MS is the one to be scared, their the big bloated target that has BEEN sued by many IP firms and companys (even whole governments, the EU is one). They are also the ones who have settled numerous times for billions (or at least hundreds of millions) of dollars in licensing

They're the most likely because they're the ones running their mouths.

Anyway, it's not about patents, but this (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul06/07-17SoftwarePiratesPR.mspx) shows that they are willing to sue.

[starcraft.man]

Linus is apparently reconsidering since Schwartz posted in his blog that they find GPLv3 to be fine, and plan on releasing their code under it. It's over on OSNews, Schwartz's blog, and widely reported.

Will have to look into that, if ZFS as well is included that could be very interesting. That FS really looks good.

Found it here. (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62020743,00.htm)


They're the most likely because they're the ones running their mouths.


So now people who make the most threats and blow the most hot air are the ones that take the most action? I never thought it worked like that.


Anyway, it's not about patents, but this (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul06/07-17SoftwarePiratesPR.mspx) shows that they are willing to sue.


Thats outright software piracy cases if I'm not mistaken. That obviously has merit. Their license expressly forbids redistribution of their product without paying for it, they make money on licenses. I don't see any ambiguity in that, no court would validate a pirates right to steal. On the other hand, patents (on IP)have been completely dismissed as baseless and obvious in the eyes of the court in recent years. If MS sued and lost, that could not only mean lots of money lost in court but more serious repercussions could follow. The two aren't the same, and MS won't sue over IP due to its uncertainty about winning. FUD on the other hand costs 0$ and can't hurt them.

[az]

I think it's crazy that the FSF is saying certain people/companies aren't allowed to even distribute the software because the FSF doesn't like the way they run their business.

What makes you think it's about their business. It's about the software. The authors of the software (not the FSF) intended for the software to be free, and software patents take away that freedom. I don't have the right to release my software in a way that protects it from that?



When Novell starts taking out patents on software ideas, then they will be the bad guy. I don't necessarily think they are the bad guy for wanting to protect their customers and their business.

The problem is that their protection undermines everyone else's. In the patent game, if you can't afford to play, you don't. All this really does is level the playing field,


That is a solution if I want to release software, but if I want to distribute someone else's software, it's not really an option.

That's right. Remember that it's someone else's software. This is between the author and the distributer. This is not about the FSF.



I don't hate the GPL. I just disagree with governing who can distribute software. The GPL shouldn't govern who can distribute software, but rather how they distribute it. It's possible to be in league with Microsoft, but still distribute GPL in a free manner (include the source & license, and allow others to modify and distribute in a like manner as long as they don't change the license).


No, you cannot make a patent deal which excludes the authors of the software you sell (except those that work for you) and think you are preserving software freedom. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

And can we forget about Microsoft? Nobody cares. Really. Microsoft is more likely to get sued rather than sue someone. Any deals that are made with Microsoft are irrelevant. the real problem will persist. The GPLv3 takes on the real problem.

[deanlinkous]

I think it's crazy that the FSF is saying certain people/companies aren't allowed to even distribute the software because the FSF doesn't like the way they run their business. HUh? That isn't what they are saying. They are saying the purpose of free software is...well.....free software and anything that would make it non-free they are against.

If a code writer puts his code under the GPL then I think his wishes (as the owner) should be respected and since he has chosen the GPL he wants the code to be free not just free to those that have patent deals.

What kind of respect does it show that someone can write code, put it under the GPL and then not be able to benefit from code sharing because companyX has a patent deal and they do not have to worry about adding infringing code but the original developer cannot benefit?

One main reason to choose the GPL over the BSD license is the 'required sharing' aspect - patent deals destroy that aspect because tainted code, even if shared, cannot benefit all.

FSF has never told people how to run their business - they write a license that people chose to put code under and it has requirements, same as any license. That license has ALWAYS had requirements - they are the same now as they use to be - software freedoms.

[ihatethedekoys]

I see it this way:

If I write a piece of software, I don't want it distributed by anybody that says MY software may or may not be infringing on some companies patent, and makes a deal with this company saying that people using MY software are protected from being sued for merely using MY software.

Plain and simple.
If you don't care that somebody distributing your software can basically tell the general public that it isn't YOUR software, and that you ripped it off from somebody else, then use GPLv2.

[Polygon]

LOL! I'd like to read that article. Last I heard Linus was mostly against the wording of the GPLv3, although I get the impression he agrees with the goal just not how they doing it.

k

www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/0972.html

[forrestcupp]

No, you cannot make a patent deal which excludes the authors of the software you sell (except those that work for you) and think you are preserving software freedom. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.
True, but usually these guys try to look ethical by saying they aren't selling the software, they are selling support and the act of packaging everything for you.


And can we forget about Microsoft? Nobody cares. Really. Microsoft is more likely to get sued rather than sue someone. Any deals that are made with Microsoft are irrelevant. the real problem will persist. The GPLv3 takes on the real problem.
The reason people keep talking about the Microsoft thing is because that is what is in the public eye. Sure, they are more likely to get sued than sue. I wish it were true that nobody cares. If no one cared, then there wouldn't be any patent deals.

The truth is that whether it is unfounded or not, people are going to be scared by this stuff. When businesses get scared, they don't buy Novell products. If businesses don't buy Novell, Novell goes out of business. A patent protection deal is one way to curb the fear. I agree that it isn't the right way, all I'm saying is that I understand why they did it.

So if FSF says companies can't do patent protection, what is the best way to curb these fears that people naturally have? I saw at one time someone was offering insurance. Is that acceptable?

[starcraft.man]

True, but usually these guys try to look ethical by saying they aren't selling the software, they are selling support and the act of packaging everything for you.

They are still vectors of distribution (close enough to selling, even if its free), thats all it takes to come under the license by FSF standards (thats FSF choice of what the standard is, if ya don't like it tell em :)).



The truth is that whether it is unfounded or not, people are going to be scared by this stuff. When businesses get scared, they don't buy Novell products. If businesses don't buy Novell, Novell goes out of business. A patent protection deal is one way to curb the fear. I agree that it isn't the right way, all I'm saying is that I understand why they did it.


Well, I'd beg to differ. I was looking at Novell's last two quarters and comparing to last years, there was a negligible change in their income/profits/margins since the deal. So I don't think it made one lick of difference. Maybe all of Novell's customers are smarter or don't care? I also do believe I saw redhats profits increase by 30% or more last quarter. I don't have sources, search... I just glanced, I'm not a numbers person.


So if FSF says companies can't do patent protection, what is the best way to curb these fears that people naturally have? I saw at one time someone was offering insurance. Is that acceptable?

Speak to them slowly and individually and allay fears(current customers). Create a campaign to educate users (new customers) without using any buzz/trigger words (those are annoying and bad, like "Get the Facts" by MS). Don't put a big mouth on a pulpit to counteract the hot air coming out of Steve Balmer. Do state your opinions, and educate the average consumers as to the misinformation being spread in a calm and collected way. Don't use threats, and do make promises of respecting the customers needs and working to ensure theirs is a great experience. I don't know, I think thats reasonable.

Ultimately, it's human nature to be scared first when seeing something unknown and usually they (people in general)do believe something quicker than it takes to make them disbelieve (i.e. hearing MS FUD, then making them see it for lies). Ultimately though, I don't think the patent deal did or will do anything to improve Novell's standing to customers or community. It's up to them to sell themselves on their own merits.

[Adamant1988]

Well, I don't see the FSF changing viewpoints on that, so the only option I see is for you or someone you know to make your own license and convince people to use it. Or you should file complaint with the FSF (or better yet have spoken during the inception of the GPL3, there were open comments).



Really? When was the last time MS sued someone for IP infringement? Or anything for that matter? You can pick any date, from the beginning. I can't think of a single time. In fact, MS is the one to be scared, their the big bloated target that has BEEN sued by many IP firms and companys (even whole governments, the EU is one). They are also the ones who have settled numerous times for billions (or at least hundreds of millions) of dollars in licensing

Uhm, actually Microsoft just sued a company who violated their patents... succesfully if I remember correctly.. this was just a few weeks ago though, so I'll go find the link..

[steven8]

Uhm, actually Microsoft just sued a company who violated their patents... succesfully if I remember correctly.. this was just a few weeks ago though, so I'll go find the link..

And no one created a thread here about it? That's hard to imagine.

[Adamant1988]

And no one created a thread here about it? That's hard to imagine.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Linux, and it was some unheard of company. Also, in all of the 60+ tech news RSS feeds I get only one bothered to report on it.

[starcraft.man]

It had absolutely nothing to do with Linux, and it was some unheard of company. Also, in all of the 60+ tech news RSS feeds I get only one bothered to report on it.

LOL! There are a LOT of unrelated linux things in the cafe :p A lot of its spam, like this :D

Oh and hey there adamant, haven't seen ya in a while, always nice to have ya pop into a discussion :). I await the link.

[Adamant1988]

LOL! There are a LOT of unrelated linux things in the cafe :p A lot of its spam, like this :D

Oh and hey there adamant, haven't seen ya in a while, always nice to have ya pop into a discussion :). I await the link.

I await finding the link... I archive all of my RSS feeds in my gmail for quick searching... but, well, I'll let the picture speak for itself...

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/5466/ughwq5.th.jpg (http://img105.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ughwq5.jpg)

This could take a while...

[starcraft.man]

I await finding the link... I archive all of my RSS feeds in my gmail for quick searching... but, well, I'll let the picture speak for itself...

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/5466/ughwq5.th.jpg (http://img105.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ughwq5.jpg)

This could take a while...

You mean this? (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/search_this_google.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535) (search "Google Microsoft Vista search" and you'll find more) The google suit of MS over the Vista search features? Google did the suing there... MS was defending (again proving how easy it is to sue them :D) unless I missed something? Different law suit, different feed?

[vexorian]

My freedom ends when your freedom begins.

That means, I am a free person and everybody should be free, but If I tried to kidnap you and lock you in a room I would be removing your freedom.

There is no true 'freedom' unless it also prevents people from taking away other's freedom.

[starcraft.man]

My freedom ends when your freedom begins.

That means, I am a free person and everybody should be free, but If I tried to kidnap you and lock you in a room I would be removing your freedom.

There is no true 'freedom' unless it also prevents people from taking away other's freedom.

Very true. I believe its equally been sufficiently proven. When a good many companies and people have been presented with the opportunity to either A) take the more difficult and less profitable path or B) the easier, more profitable and a bit riskier path, most have chosen B. The rise in extreme profit seeking, such as outsourcing of hundreds of jobs and lower quality concerns, in combination with the rise of p2p piracy of media and software are good examples.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say businesses taught the average person to pirate, they began using the cheapest, easiest most profitable means to get the job done. To the average consumer, nothing beats piracy in that respect over p2p, and the odds of being caught and prosecuted are so low, lightning has better odds. The bottom line is, when presented the choice to take liberties rather than respect, people and businesses have come accustomed to taking.

[Adamant1988]

You mean this? (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/search_this_google.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535) (search "Google Microsoft Vista search" and you'll find more) The google suit of MS over the Vista search features? Google did the suing there... MS was defending (again proving how easy it is to sue them :D) unless I missed something? Different law suit, different feed?

No it wasn't on those pages. Like I said, Microsoft basically played big-bully to some unknown company that violated it's IP... it hardly registered on the tech-o-sphere. I think techmeme had the article on it... Also, what I was talking about was.. look down in the lower right hand corner of the web page :P That's how many articles I have to try to sort through...

[starcraft.man]

No it wasn't on those pages. Like I said, Microsoft basically played big-bully to some unknown company that violated it's IP... it hardly registered on the tech-o-sphere. I think techmeme had the article on it... Also, what I was talking about was.. look down in the lower right hand corner of the web page :P That's how many articles I have to try to sort through...

LOL! You index way too many RSS feeds.

[steven8]

No it wasn't on those pages. Like I said, Microsoft basically played big-bully to some unknown company that violated it's IP... it hardly registered on the tech-o-sphere. I think techmeme had the article on it... Also, what I was talking about was.. look down in the lower right hand corner of the web page :P That's how many articles I have to try to sort through...

Microsoft played big bully to a little company?? I just don't believe it. :popcorn:

[Teg_Navanis]

www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/0972.html

(Concerning Linus adopting GPLv3)

Well, considering how vehemently he argued against the GPLv3 in an ensuing discussion with a FSF board member, I seriously doubt that Linus is still considering the switch.



What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2, and
that I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.2/0223.html



The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.

The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.

(...)

Last I did the statistic, I asked the
top ~25-30 kernel developers about their opinion. NOT A SINGLE ONE
preferred the GPLv3.

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.2/1162.html


I guess if anything, he is now even more against the GPLv3 than before the discussion (which started with this (http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/1904.html) comment on June 13th).

[deanlinkous]

Anyone find it strange that linus says he doesn't mind tivo-ization, and that he doesn't care what people do with the code. Yet if someone wanted to fork the kernel to try and make a v3 kernel I wonder if he would mind.......makes you wonder!

I also do not see how it is *practically impossible* and *pointless* and *the worst of the two versions* one minute and then is something entirely different if SUN is going to use v3.

[saulgoode]

If I may be so bold as to attempt a summary of the discussion on the LKML (for which Teg_Navanis provided a link):

First, the LKML argument was not over patent clauses, but about what the FSF calls tivoization. If someone provides me with GPLed software that contains patented methods and does not license me to use those patents, there is no legal way for me to use that code. This is prohibited by GPL2 but the actual wording of GPL2 did not address the "covenants" like the MS-Novell deal. The GPL3 (to my knowledge) does address those "covenants".

Tivoization is when GPL code is offered on hardware that restricts usage of code in a way that only the original version of that GPL code can run on that hardware. Unlike patent restrictions, tivoization does not restrict the user from legally using the code on other hardware. It is notable that the company Tivo does provide the source code to the version of the software installed on the machine but employ "secret keys" to assure that only that version will run on their hardware.

The kernel developers -- especially Linus Torvalds and the key contributors -- feel that providing source code back to the original authors is sufficient. They can take that code, modify it, and run it on other hardware. The fact that they can not run the modified code on the original hardware does not bother them; at least not enough to warrant a new license.

The FSF feel that the modified code should be runnable on the original hardware and have placed clauses in the GPL3 that make it a condition of distributing GPL3-licensed software. Their concern is that, without such restrictions, more and more companies will produce hardware which uses GPLed code but does not enable the user to actually modify that code (and run the modified version).

Both sides of this argument have valid points. I am not completely decided myself on which is "better". Certainly software authors deserve the right to place whatever restrictions they wish (within the law) on the usage of their code, and that right includes placing demands on hardware marketers who distribute their code. But perhaps the demands stipulated in the GPL3 will have a chilling effect on further usage (and thusly development) of Free Software as manufacturers who wish to (or, in some cases, need to) "lock down" their boxes and control what software is run on them turn to proprietary solutions.

[deanlinkous]

So what happens when computers are locked down like tivo boxes....????

I have no problem with Tivo providing Tivo boxes to those that want tivo boxes. However, if I purchase a tivo box and want to do something else with it then it is my fair use rights and if it is running free software then I should be free to do everything the license states.

The GPLv2 *pretty much* requires anything and everything needed to modify the code which would include "secret keys" and now the gplv3 just makes it a bit clearer.

[jiminycricket]

The FSF feel that the modified code should be runnable on the original hardware and have placed clauses in the GPL3 that make it a condition of distributing GPL3-licensed software. Their concern is that, without such restrictions, more and more companies will produce hardware which uses GPLed code but does not enable the user to actually modify that code (and run the modified version).

Both sides of this argument have valid points. I am not completely decided myself on which is "better". Certainly software authors deserve the right to place whatever restrictions they wish (within the law) on the usage of their code, and that right includes placing demands on hardware marketers who distribute their code. But perhaps the demands stipulated in the GPL3 will have a chilling effect on further usage (and thusly development) of Free Software as manufacturers who wish to (or, in some cases, need to) "lock down" their boxes and control what software is run on them turn to proprietary solutions.

The thing I feel is that device manufacturers probably want to use the best products for their devices. And it's either free software like the GPL with obligations only on distribution/conveyance of the GPL'd software, or proprietary software with big restrictions like Symbian or Windows Mobile. The "User Products" part of the new GPLv3 since draft 3 also helps allay companies' fears of no lockdown in medical devices or business applications.

Perhaps BSD can make a running, but they've already experienced problems due to the nature of the BSD license and companies taking the product closed source, so that the unifying nature of the GPL doesn't take hold.
Maybe it was a mistake to call it "Tivoisation" since that makes it seem like only silly devices like that are affected. We already see today issues with open hardware drivers (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html) not being available because of Microsoft and the "Trusted" Computing Group's DRM contractual obligations. As Trusted Computing becomes more and more viable, the GPLv3 will probably become much more important.

[koenn]

That is a solution if I want to release software, but if I want to distribute someone else's software, it's not really an option.
The guy who made the software (the copyright holder) decides the terms and conditions under which his work is published / (re-)destributed. Not you. What did you expect ?



I don't hate the GPL. I just disagree with governing who can distribute software. The GPL shouldn't govern who can distribute software, but rather how
Isn't "how" what the GPL governs : you (anyone) can re-distribute as long as there are no additional restrictions compared to how you got the stuff in the first place.

[saulgoode]

So what happens when computers are locked down like tivo boxes....????

But is a copyright license the best place to wage that battle? If a bookseller was stipulating that you weren't allowed to read a book they sold you on a bus, should the author change his copyright so that it would be permitted? Maybe it would be better to just let the stupidity of the bookseller (or the "non-programmable computer" seller) be handled by free market economics.


I have no problem with Tivo providing Tivo boxes to those that want tivo boxes. However, if I purchase a tivo box and want to do something else with it then it is my fair use rights and if it is running free software then I should be free to do everything the license states.

The GPLv2 *pretty much* requires anything and everything needed to modify the code which would include "secret keys" and now the gplv3 just makes it a bit clearer.

I would propose ignoring how the actual restriction against running Free Software on their hardware is implemented; let's just assume that the company prohibits it in your purchase agreement. (I would actually argue that "secret keys" are already covered by GPL2, but nobody has been willing to try the issue.)

If I sell you a device which has the GIMP installed on it, is it acceptable for me to stipulate that you can only run the GIMP on it? Or should it be a license condition that since the device runs one piece of GPL software, it must permit the running of all other GPL software? (For with enough "modification", the GIMP could be turned into OpenOffice and therefore OOo must be permitted to run on the device.)

Should the GPL3 be telling hardware manufacturers that their hardware must run whatever GPL software the user wishes (if their H/W ships with some GPL software)? Personally, I would rather the anti-tivoization language had been left out of GPL3. I suspect that it is unnecessary and that market forces would demand that computers remain programmable. I haven't seen a rash of Tivo-like products appearing on the market and consumers seem to be rejecting most attempts at DRM. I am just not sure that anti-tivoization clauses provide enough benefit to justify the splintering of Free Software authors.

Having said that, I also don't think the presence of anti-tivoization clauses is worth avoiding GPL3. Unless the FSF changes their mind on this issue, I am hoping that the other benefits (especially its international approach) offered by GPL3 will be seen as sufficient reason for Free Software authors to adopt it (including the Linux kernel developers). If I am forced to choose between GNU software and Linux kernel, I shall be siding with GNU software.

[jiminycricket]

But is a copyright license the best place to wage that battle? If a bookseller was stipulating that you weren't allowed to read a book they sold you on a bus, should the author change his copyright so that it would be permitted? Maybe it would be better to just let the stupidity of the bookseller (or the "non-programmable computer" seller) be handled by free market economics.

DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act = monopoly
WIPO 1996 anti-circumvention treaty that lobbyists and US free trade agreements are pressuring countries across the world to ratify, most have already signed= monopoly

No free market.

[deanlinkous]

....

I had a intelligent, genius, amazing, influential post all typed out and the power blinked out and killed it so....in place of that.... :)

Yes I think the license is perfect for waging the battle considering the only way the license applies is IF they have chosen to use free software - and in that case the license is very applicable.

If the author explicity wanted to make sure you could read it on a BUS then I would consider it the perfect solution. Especially if every bookseller decided to do the same thing because they seen a way to profit from it. I am not saying it will happen tommorrow but given time I think a company will see they can use a no-cost solution and lock it up just like the cost-solution then why wouldn't they all do the same?

The *free market* will never decide anything because it is full of shee-ple and not those that care about anything except what technology can do - nevermind how locked in they are or what they are giving up. I do not hold such a rosy outlook of the current market as you do, or the perception that DRM (in some form or another) isn't being accepted by the shee-ple.

As I posted earlier, IMO GPLv2 does cover *secret keys* IMO but it does not state it explicitly v3 clarifies and explicity covers the keys. I think there have actually been a couple cases (not in the US) that have determined that keys are covered by the GPLv2. iirc siemens was one of them...

On a OT note - I am thinking of boycotting anything that doesn't move to gplv3!

[saulgoode]

I had a intelligent, genius, amazing, influential post all typed out and the power blinked out and killed it so....in place of that.... :)

Yes I think the license is perfect for waging the battle considering the only way the license applies is IF they have chosen to use free software - and in that case the license is very applicable.

I don't see the GPL3 as the "perfect" weapon precisely because it is no longer a copyright license. It has adopted the tactics employed by the "enemy" and an "ends justifies the means" approach to the battle.

GPL2 was a copyright license, Section 0 clearly limits it to only applying to the rights assignable through copyright: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

GPL3 has removed the language limiting its scope to just copyrights and its anti-tivoization clauses place the license into the same category of contractual agreements as shrink-wrap licenses, EULAs, and DMCA-backed DRM measures. This is, in my opinion, a shame. There is some amount of perfection lost when you stoop to the level of that which you oppose. Personally, I don't agree with "the ends justifies the means". There was a logical elegance in the original copyleft GPL which played a major role in its efficacy and longevity. The "plug all possible loopholes" mentality of the GPL3 is something I don't feel was necessary and Free Software sacrifices some of the "moral high ground" when it abandons reasonable copyright enforcement in favor of less tenable "licensing agreements".

None of this should be interpreted as my thinking GPL3 is "evil" or even a worse license than GPL2. Overall, I think many of the details handled by GPL3 were useful and it was important to make the license less U.S.-centric.

I do have a "rosy outlook" on the future of Free Software, regardless of whether GPL3 plugs loopholes or not. I have been following (as a dilletante) the legality of software copyrights and patents since the early 80s and while the courts have swung back and forth between the rights of the authors/inventors and those the users/exploiters, there has been one singular constant: the courts have based their decisions on what is best for the consumer. This is why Free Software has never lost a case and why the billion-dollar corporations eschew going to trial against It; regardless of any technicalities in language of the licenses involved, the courts base their decisions on the ultimate benefit to the general public. That is their Constitutional mandate and the only reason for copyright and patent subsidies to exist in the first place.

[deanlinkous]

ooo....you may have a point

Going too far to protect free software....but then again consider what you are dealing with. Maybe fighting fire with fire is what must occur. We already tried the high-ground and it was violated hundreds if not thousands of times so now we need to get down and dirty. Yes, maybe it is a bit *too much* but since companies are starting to find ways around the requirements along with linux becoming more popular they need to take a harder stance now to protect what has been gained. Otherwise, it will be a joke.....that "free software" that isn't free in many ways...wink wink....

But I do see your point and I think it is a good one - and you make it better (or I am paying more attention to you) than anyone else ever has.

But as you stated, it is about public benefit (empowerment if you will) and that should mean that I have some control - DRM and patents and even proprietary software seeks to remove my control and that certainly not to my benefit.

Good conversation though.....guess I should go and actually read v3 ;)

[jiminycricket]

I don't see the GPL3 as the "perfect" weapon precisely because it is no longer a copyright license. It has adopted the tactics employed by the "enemy" and an "ends justifies the means" approach to the battle.

GPL2 was a copyright license, Section 0 clearly limits it to only applying to the rights assignable through copyright: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

GPL3 has removed the language limiting its scope to just copyrights and its anti-tivoization clauses place the license into the same category of contractual agreements as shrink-wrap licenses, EULAs, and DMCA-backed DRM measures. This is, in my opinion, a shame. There is some amount of perfection lost when you stoop to the level of that which you oppose. Personally, I don't agree with "the ends justifies the means". There was a logical elegance in the original copyleft GPL which played a major role in its efficacy and longevity. The "plug all possible loopholes" mentality of the GPL3 is something I don't feel was necessary and Free Software sacrifices some of the "moral high ground" when it abandons reasonable copyright enforcement in favor of less tenable "licensing agreements".


I don't think it's contractual. I as a user don't have to accept the license and there's no meeting of the mind. If it abandons the elegance of the original copyleft, it's only because the world has progressed since 1991 (Google? Bittorrent? Wazzat?) in new threats to free software, as Microsoft has done. Even the original GPLv1 didn't have anything to do with patents or the GPLv2 Section 7 "Liberty or Death" clause, because RMS hadn't been confronted with those threats yet.

GPLv3 ensures the reciprocity from GPLv1, so that people with patents ensure reciprocity, and the anti-Tivoisation measure ensures reciprocity. It says nothing about the DMCA other than you waive the right to sue people distributing software you distributed under GPLv3 under the DMCA, which is probably a good thing, wouldn't you say :P If companies don't like that, they should pay the GPLv3 coder for the privilege to get it under a proprietary dual license. Or the coder could dual license it as he puts it under GPLv3.