GPL 3 ques..

[Dark Star]

Can some1 explains me the main highlight a few important changes in GPL v3 :) Plz be fast a bit ;):popcorn:

Peas Ds

[koenn]

http://www.thehomeworkhelp.com/

[Dark Star]

http://www.thehomeworkhelp.com/
WHat was that ? :x Plz I need a short main points I also know here to get full essay btw can any I explain ? :s

[John.Michael.Kane]

It would if you told us what this is for, and exactly what you don't understand about the GPL.

[PriceChild]

Why can't anyone just tell him?

I really haven't looked at the final revision, but one thing I know is that it now prevents things like DRM.

[John.Michael.Kane]

Why can't anyone just tell him?

I really haven't looked at the final revision, but one thing I know is that it now prevents things like DRM.

Tell him what!

The GPL, and what it means does has been, and can be interpreted in different ways. which you should already know,

He is better off getting a copy of GPLv2, and a copy of GPLv3, and studying it for himself.

[koenn]

Tell him what!

The GPL, and what it means does has been, and can be interpreted in different ways which you should already know,

He is better off get a copy of GPLv2, and a copy of GPLv3, and studying it for himself.
Exactly.
The least he could do is outline /explain a bit of context of his question - makes it easier to answer it.

As it is, the 'question' just sounds like "Do my howework for me. NOW !!" -

[starcraft.man]

Here, the final text of the GPL V3.
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html)
Here is version 2. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt)

The extra specifications boil down (as I see them) to effectively stamping out any more deals like Novell that give only "part" of linux the patent protection. Also, the tivoization feature is meant to stop well things like Tivo, where extra hooks/keys prevent you from modifying it (source/program). A few other changes were minimal, like fixing wording so it better fits internationally. Read both, they aren't too long and its good to understand.

Oh and you may (not sure) want to look at the LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html) too, its somewhat related though much more liberal than either of the other two.

I don't see whats so difficult about answering the question.

[az]

It's the same old GPL, which protects the same four software freedoms. It does have extra protection for today's tough problems. It's not very easy to sum up. Fortunately, Luis Villa does a great job in his blog:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/26/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-1-the-license/

There are four parts and are a great read. Here is one bit:

Quote:

Q: What has changed, then?
A: A few major changes (note that some of these have been grossly oversimplified to be audience and scope appropriate; please don’t jump on me when I’ve not noted exceptions, loopholes, etc.) Note that I’ll have more on several of these over the next couple of days.

* internationalization: the new license moves away from language like ‘derivative’ - which comes from US copyright law - in favor of language which does not exist in any system of copyright law. This is excellent in theory- it should make the license more politically palatable and legally enforceable outside the US. In practice no one can really know what courts will think of this until it is tested. 3
* increased complexity: this tries to be a more lawyer-friendly document. It is not clear that it succeeded. Regardless of whether the lawyers like it, it is definitely less clear for hackers and executives on first glance, and that may slow uptake.4
* patents, the straightforward part: the license attempts to create an explicit and irrevocable patent grant extending from all contributors to all users. If you contribute a substantive patch upstream5, you’re granting a patent license to the whole project. Merely distributing without copyrightable contribution, like IBM does with many GNU tools6 still does not grant a license. This should help create more certainty about the patents owned by our major contributors- the folks like Sun, Novell, etc. - but it doesn’t help against those who don’t contribute code, like Microsoft and patent trolls. So the impact is positive but limited.
* patents, the complicated part: a lot of verbiage has been added in an attempt to prevent future blanket indemnifications like the Microsoft-Novell deal, and to ‘trick’ Microsoft into granting us their patents. I won’t go into these in much depth because I’m pretty sure they don’t buy us much - it looks like the Xandros and Linspire deals are already structured to avoid triggering these clauses, and there is no reason to believe that Novell and Microsoft can’t do the same. So net result here is probably that only the worst abuses of the old language, like the current Novell deal, are prevented. Not bad, but not the end of the Microsoft problem by any stretch.
* user control: the new license tries to make it clear that users have the right to control their hardware and software. This takes two forms: first, it forbids a claim by distributors of GPL’d code that the code is part of an ‘effective technical protection measure’ and second, it explicitly guarantees that installation instructions (including all the necessary tools and keys) must be available so that users can modify their software and reinstall it on devices that they own. This language, while not always straightforward, should mean that consumer-level users of GPL v3 code should be able to reliably modify the GPL-licensed code on devices that they own.
* license compatibility: the new license is compatible with the Apache Public License, so if you’re working on GPL v3 code, you should now be able to copy and paste from APL-licensed code. This does not mean that someone working on APL-licensed code can copy and paste from GPL v3 licensed code, though- compatibility with the GPL is always one way. (And the same applies to GPL v2 code- you can’t copy out of GPL v2 code, even into GPL v3 code.)