decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Reactions to the GPLv3 Draft and a GLPv2-v3 Comparative Chart
Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 12:26 PM EST

Reactions are starting to come in to the draft of the GPLv3, and they are favorable. I'd say it is a success. Of course, this is the first draft and there will be more. I believe the next is in June. If you have comments you wish to make to FSF to make the draft better, they go here. Endearingly enough, the process is that you select text and then type "c" to submit comments. You can also email them. Instructions on that are here.

ComputerWorld's China Marten captures why it all matters and what some folks were hoping for. I think you'll agree that most got what they wanted. Let's take a look at some of the other coverage, including a couple of misunderstandings, and I've also prepared a comparative chart, with some help from Mathfox when I pooped out last night, that should help you to see the differences easily between this draft and v2.

Newsforge thinks there will be contentions:

The debate over the new version is expected to be a contentious one, as free software proponents clash with those whose interests dictate that the GPL should be less free and more "business friendly."

I'd like to say two things about that. One, the new version *is* more business friendly, *without* being less free.

Second, the whole point of the GPL in the first place was to ensure certain freedoms, including preventing rapacious businesses from ripping off the community's work, which is a primary reason why the GPL is the most popular license chosen by developers. They trust it. Of course, businesses rarely think of themselves as rapacious, but sometimes they get so honed in on money, honey, they forget about us users and what we'd like and they forget that GPL'd code belongs to the folks that wrote it. It's not public domain. Think SCO if you have any doubts about why one might wish to be alert or about the GPL's efficacy in an attempted rape-and-pillage event.

But if decent businesses want to use the code -- and that is voluntary -- perhaps they need to consider being more "freedom friendly" and realize that the GPL community is quite serious about protecting users' and developers' freedoms, by protecting the code's freedom. While many businesses are buying into the DRM, cuff-the-customer balkanization strategy, the GPL stands for users and against the business mentality of profit at *any* cost to anyone and anything. Even Bill Gates said recently that in his view one of the DRM schemes chosen by the Hollywood titans is overly friendly to business and hostile to customers. The GPL simply makes that official, by preventing anyone from using GPL code in such hostile ways. Within the framework of freedom, you can still make money with GPL code -- businesses already do -- but not at the expense of users.

Note that in the preamble, it again points out that if you wish to use the LGPL instead, you certainly can. LGPL is still Free Software. That is what JBoss does, for example, although I wonder if they will be able to do more with the new version of the GPL than they felt they could with version 2.

My point is, there is a lot of breathing room in the GPLv3, such as the "system library exception" and the LGPL option, that any business can look into for its needs. The "separate works" clause says you can distribute works under different licenses as part of a larger GPL whole. Further the aggregate work clause means, as I understand it from this explanation, that you can use software in compilations without triggering the GPL. And there is the new "add your own additional requirements" clause. And finally there is the new 60-day notification period, whereby if you have violated the GPL, and you are approached about it, you can cure it and retain your license if you act promptly. Most such violations are not deliberate, historically, so now there is even less reason to worry about using the GPL.

The gifted Stephen Shankland manages to list the highlights of this complex document succinctly, although he can't resist plugging the CDDL at the end. The CDDL can't hold a candle to the GPLv3 as far as user freedom, in my view. The CDDL is more about developer freedom. There is a difference, especially if you are a user:

The proposed GPL revisions include expected changes in several areas:
• Provisions to make sure digital rights management mechanisms don't curtail software freedoms;
• An explicit grant of patent rights by anyone redistributing GPL-governed software;
• A retaliation clause that prohibits an organization from using privately modified GPL software if it files a patent infringement lawsuit relating to that software;
• And new terms describing how copyright holders may add additional licensing terms, such as more-severe patent retaliation provisions, to GPL software.

That last is enabling to the patents commons projects. PCPro zeroed in on the patents language also and noted the new add-your-own terms clause:

The draft also goes further on how it deals with patents. As before, software licensed under the GPL must offer free and unrestricted use of any patented technology it contains. However, there is now also a clause that ensures that where software is licensed under the GPL and also uses code licensed from patents either owned by the vendor or a third party, the vendor 'must act to shield downstream users against the possible patent infringement claims'....

For the first time, a software maker wishing to license a program under the GPL can actually add new terms to the licence provided they do not interfere with any of the provisions already set out. The draft suggests this might include withdrawal of patent licences to users closely associated with pressing patent lawsuits, which is referred to in the document as 'patent retaliation'.

I believe PCPro misunderstands one aspect of the license:

Additionally there are terms that appear to attempt to prevent the wholesale analysis of GPL software by lawyers looking for patent infringement. It allows 'unlimited permission to privately modify and run the Program, provided you do not bring suit for patent infringement against anyone for making, using or distributing their own works based on the Program'.

Analysis doesn't seem to be the right word. You can analyze to your hearts' content, as I'm sure the anti-GPL minitroops will all over the Internet. What you can't do is bring patent litigation. That makes more sense, I'm sure you'd agree.

Wired got an interview with Richard Stallman:

"The world has sprung very nasty threats on us and our software," said Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation. The new GPL "ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden," according to the preamble to the GPLv3 draft....

Thus developers who release their software under GPL are able to make it freely available without fear of its appropriation by commercial interests unwilling to share with others. Since its release in 1991, GPLv2 has leveled the playing field for developers by protecting them from corporate bullying, and fostering the environment of intellectual freedom that led directly to such widely used open-source projects as the GNU/Linux operating system.

But developers are being threatened by corporations seeking exclusive control of an array of technologies, said Stallman and others at the first Conference on GPLv3. Among the looming dangers: an increased use of software patents (which Stallman called "a disastrous thing") and the spread of digital-rights-management schemes (which the Free Software Foundation prefers to call "handcuffware").

DRM isn't blocked by the new GPL, as long as the user isn't blocked. That's how I'd sum it up. And InternetNews understood the license compatibility issue:

One of the other items that GPL version 2 users have struggled with over the years is compatibility of the license with other free and open source software licenses. In some cases, such as one with MySQL in 2004 license incompatibility prevents software from being distributed and bundled together.

According to the FSF's rationale document, "GPLv3 contains provisions that are designed to reduce license incompatibility by making it easier for developers to combine code carrying non-GPL terms with GPL'd code."...

Karen Copenhaver, general counsel at software compliance firm Black Duck Software explained that for many important software programs licensed under GPL 2, the license is specific with respect to 2.0. "Unless there is a process put in place to move that license form 2 to 3, that code will continue to be licensed under GPL 2," Copenhaver told internetnews.com. "With respect to code licensed under "GPL 2 and any subsequent version," anyone distributing that code could apply the terms of GPL 3 once GPL 3 is formally in place."

She is likely referring to Linux, which is licensed under v2 and so far as I know will stay that way. Here's the chart we did, which we hope will help you to participate in this historic process. FSF is quite serious about wanting your input. And that includes businesses. If you see a gotcha that affects you, don't assume they don't care about it. Let them know. Perhaps they never thought about it from that angle before. Lawyers try to think of every possible contingency, but they can't write about a situation they never thought of. It's like bugs in software. Some user tries to use the software in a way the authors hadn't thought of, and that is how a lot of bugs are discovered and fixed. It's the same here precisely. I know the purpose is to preserve freedoms first, but FSF also has a goal of making the GPL more friendly to those who sincerely want to use it or interact with it, including businesses. So if you need something that isn't yet in the draft, speak up. Depending on what it is, you may or may not get it, but you surely won't if you don't speak up.

On the chart, if you see any needed changes, things we missed, for example, do leave a comment, so we can perfect it. Please note that the new version, v3 is on the left and the old on the right. The reason for that is the numbers of the two documents don't match up, and in order for the numbers on the left in the chart for the paragraphs to make sense, I opted to put the new version on the left, and indicate what the old number was that matches the new paragraph in the text of the corresponding paragraph in v2. I used the v3 numbering to do it, because if you look at v3, you'll see that for certain paragraphs, there is the number of the paragraph and then a second number in brackets. The second number indicates which paragraph in v2 matches the paragraph in v3. I hope that's clear.

********************************

# GPLv3 GPLv2
- Preamble Preamble
-The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
- When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
- To protect your rights, we need to make requirements that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
- For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
- Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software. We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
- For the developers' and author's protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, the GPL ensures that recipients are told that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations. Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
- Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden.--
- Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL makes it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
- The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
- GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0 Definitions.

A "licensed program" means any program or other work distributed under this License.The "Program" refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either modified or unmodified. Throughout this License, the term "modification" includes, without limitation, translation and extension. A "covered work" means either the Program or any work based on the Program. Each licensee is addressed as "you".

To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires permission under applicable copyright law, other than executing it on a computer or making private modifications. This includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), sublicensing, and in some countries other activities as well.

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

1Source Code. The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source version of a work.

The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files.

Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.

Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Complete Corresponding Source Code.

As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface, the implementation of which requires no patent license not already generally available for software under this License.

--
2 Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program. The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program. This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

This License gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the Program, provided you do not bring suit for patent infringement against anyone for making, using or distributing their own works based on the Program.

Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided it does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies. Propagation which does enable them to do so is permitted, as "distribution", under the conditions of sections 4-6 below.

--
3 Digital Restrictions Management.

As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.

--
4 Verbatim Copying.

You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all license notices and notices of the absence of any warranty; give all recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program; and obey any additional terms present on parts of the Program in accord with section 7.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection for a fee.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty ; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

5 Distributing Modified Source Versions.

Having modified a copy of the Program under the conditions of section 2, thus forming a work based on the Program, you may copy and distribute such modifications or work in the form of source code under the terms of Section 4 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The modified work must carry prominent notices stating that you changed the work and the date of any change.

b) You must license the entire modified work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License must apply, unmodified except as permitted by section 7 below, to the whole of the work. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may redistribute the modified work under these conditions, and how to view a copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of other terms in accord with section 7. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a command to display this information must be prominent in the list. Otherwise, the modified work must display this information at startup--except in the case that the Program has such interactive modes and does not display this information at startup.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work, added by you, are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works for use not in combination with the Program. But when you distribute the same sections for use in combination with covered works, no matter in what form such combination occurs, the whole of the combination must be licensed under this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to every part of the whole. Your sections may carry other terms as part of this combination in limited ways, described in section 7.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Mere inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

2.You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b)You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

6 Non-Source Distribution.

You may copy and distribute a covered work in Object Code form under the terms of Sections 4 and 5, provided that you also distribute the machine-readable Complete Corresponding Source Code (herein the "Corresponding Source") under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

a) Distribute the Object Code in a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source distributed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Distribute the Object Code in a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give any third party, for a price no more than ten times your cost of physically performing source distribution, a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Privately distribute the Object Code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only for occasional noncommercial distribution, and only if you received the Object Code with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above. Or,

d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the Object Code.

[If the place to copy the Object Code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you have explicitly arranged with the operator of that server to keep the Corresponding Source available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements, and provided you maintain clear directions next to the Object Code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.]

Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.

The Corresponding Source may include portions which do not formally state this License as their license, but qualify under section 7 for inclusion in a work under this License.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

7 License Compatibility.

When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits, or permit usage or relicensing under this License. Your terms may be written separately or may be this License plus additional written permission. If you so license your own added parts, those parts may be used separately under your terms, but the entire work remains under this License. Those who copy the work, or works based on it, must preserve your terms just as they must preserve this License, as long as any substantial portion of the parts they apply to are present.

Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited kinds of additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:

a) They may require the preservation of certain copyright notices, other legal notices, and/or author attributions, and may require that the origin of the parts they cover not be misrepresented, and/or that altered versions of them be marked in the source code, or marked there in specific reasonable ways, as different from the original version.

b) They may state a disclaimer of warranty and liability in terms different from those used in this License.

c) They may prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of contributors, and they may require that certain specified trademarks be used for publicity purposes only in the ways that are fair use under trademark law except with express permission.

d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding Source Code.

e) They may impose software patent retaliation, which means permission for use of your added parts terminates or may be terminated, wholly or partially, under stated conditions, for users closely related to any party that has filed a software patent lawsuit (i.e., a lawsuit alleging that some software infringes a patent). The conditions must limit retaliation to a subset of these two cases: 1. Lawsuits that lack the justification of retaliating against other software patent lawsuits that lack such justification. 2. Lawsuits that target part of this work, or other code that was elsewhere released together with the parts you added, the whole being under the terms used here for those parts.

No other additional conditions are permitted in your terms; therefore, no other conditions can be present on any work that uses this License. This License does not attempt to enforce your terms, or assert that they are valid or enforceable by you; it simply does not prohibit you from employing them.

When others modify the work, if they modify your parts of it, they may release such parts of their versions under this License without additional permissions, by including notice to that effect, or by deleting the notice that gives specific permissions in addition to this License. Then any broader permissions granted by your terms which are not granted by this License will not apply to their modifications, or to the modified versions of your parts resulting from their modifications. However, the specific requirements of your terms will still apply to whatever was derived from your added parts.

Unless the work also permits distribution under a previous version of this License, all the other terms included in the work under this section must be listed, together, in a central list in the work.

--
8Termination.

You may not propagate, modify or sublicense the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate, modify or sublicense the Program is void, and any copyright holder may terminate your rights under this License at any time after having notified you of the violation by any reasonable means within 60 days of any occurrence. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as they remain in full compliance.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
9 Not a Contract.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy of the Program. However, nothing else grants you permission to propagate or modify the Program or any covered works. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating the Program (or any covered work), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
10Automatic Licensing of Downstream Users.

Each time you redistribute a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to propagate and modify that work, subject to this License, including any additional terms introduced through section 7. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights thus granted or affirmed, except (when modifying the work) in the limited ways permitted by section 7. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
11Licensing of Patents.

When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work, permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all activities allowed or contemplated by this License, such as installing, running and distributing versions of the work, and using their output. This patent license is nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide, and covers all patent claims you control or have the right to sublicense, at the time you distribute the covered work or in the future, that would be infringed or violated by the covered work or any reasonably contemplated use of the covered work.

If you distribute a covered work knowingly relying on a patent license, you must act to shield downstream users against the possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects you.

--
12 Liberty or Death for the Program.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute the Program, or other covered work, so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute it at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other exclusive rights or to contest their legal validity. The sole purpose of this section is to protect the integrity of the free software distribution system. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

13 Geographical Limitations.

If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.]

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
14 Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

15 Requesting Exceptions.

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
16 NO WARRANTY

There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide the Program "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the Program is with you. Should the Program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

17 In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or redistribute the Program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use the Program (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of the Program to operate with any other programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
18 Unless specifically stated, the Program has not been tested for use in safety critical systems. --


  


Reactions to the GPLv3 Draft and a GLPv2-v3 Comparative Chart | 241 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 01:20 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 02:37 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL and the Suits
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 03:59 PM EST
I work for a multi-national.
Management (Suits) has this fear that using any
FOSS at all means that all our product becomes GPL'd.

Example: using a free
distro bootable CD to install our software would make all our product subject to
the GPL.

It would be helpful to have an official technical codicil to
explicitly state what actions you can or cannot do when mixing FOSS with
commercial products. I.E, you can include a header(.H) file, but not edit it.
Or, you can link to a library but not recompile it. Etc.

Also, if you use a
FOSS program like Doxygen, do you have to provide the source, even if you only
downloaded and used the executable file. (Did no compiling or linking, just used
it.)

There is a lot of FUD in the executive suite that is keeping FOSS out of
the workplace.

Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh no, backwards diff!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 04:00 PM EST
Argh, you did the diff backwards!

When looking at a comparison like this, it's much easier (IMHO) to understand if
the old version is on the left and the new one on the right. The various
standard software development tools that show differences between two versions
of a program/document usually use color-coding, with deleted text appearing in
the left box in red, and added text in the right box in blue. This article uses
this colour coding, but with the backwards diff it's rather confusing since the
red text is actually stuff that's been *added* to the GPLv3.

I hate to suggest this since I know it's a lot of work, but could the diff be
re-done the other way round?

- Andrew

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reactions to the GPLv3 Draft and a GLPv2-V3 Comparative Chart
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 04:01 PM EST
V3 is actually much clearer and more understandable then V2.

Of course, I'm not used to thinking weasily, so I can't think of any ways to
circumvent either version. But the intent in V3 is crystal clear.

It also seems to address all of the points I've heard complaints about in V2. Of
course, this clarity will be completely missed by those who live in alternate
universes.

The authors are to be applauded for their efforts.

---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said

[ Reply to This | # ]

I do miss the simplicity of V2
Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 04:12 PM EST
They explain and qualify too much for my taste. I did like the simplicity of
V2.

Still, I think they do know what they do.

Rob

---
Revenge, Justice, Security, and Revenge, chose any two.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reactions to the GPLv3 Draft and a GLPv2-V3 Comparative Chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 04:28 PM EST
Good grief, am I happy they lowercased the totally
UPPERCASED sections.
Writing everything in uppercase in licenses is only needed
for licenses were people are not supposed to read it
(uppercasing has that glazing effect on most people).

That special kind of screaming was completely misplaced in
the gpl.

Ernest ter Kuile.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compatible with Apache 2.0 license? Other licenses?
Authored by: dwheeler on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 04:45 PM EST
On first reading, it appears that this new GPL (if approved as-is) would be compatible with the Apache 2 license. This would be a MAJOR WIN. The Apache web server is licensed this way, but possibly more importantly, a lot of Java code is licensed under the Apache 2 license. If Apache 2 and GPL code could be mixed it'd be a major improvement from the current situation. Has anyone done the analysis to confirm this? Any analysis on other licenses previously considered incompatible?

This seems to fix many incompatibilities with the OpenSSL license, but one: OpenSSL's "obnoxious advertizing clauses". Or am I misreading this... is this GPLv3draft compatible with the OpenSSL license?

The new GPL text allowing licenses to forbid the use of certain names in certain contexts looks like a BIG improvement for GPL-based businesses and for customers who want to know where their code comes from. A business can create a program, GPL it, and say "you have to give it a new name to redistribute it". Users can then KNOW for sure that they're getting the program from that business (if they want that), and still anyone can fork the project if that becomes necessary. So you don't lose the ability to modify code, yet you can still know for sure where it came from (if that's important to you). That seems reasonable enough. You could do this before, anyway, using trademark law (Red Hat does this), but if you can do via embedded license requirements it's a lot cheaper and easier to enforce.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Durable Physical"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 06:06 PM EST
Stallman told me once he intended to close what he viewed as a loop hole.
Basically what a lot of vendor do is decide (correctly IMHO) that ftp/http is a
"medium commonly used for software interchange". So they just
included a written offer to download the source from the internet. Even my
Nokia 770 does this. (Of course Nokia's www.maemo.org includes a development
environment as well.) Now it looks like you'll need to provide a cdrom or an
offer to ship one. Seems silly given we live in the internet age.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reactions to the GPLv3 Draft and a GLPv2-V3 Comparative Chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 06:29 PM EST
My comments: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.miros.general/1635

[ Reply to This | # ]

patent clauses dangerous?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 06:36 PM EST
Obviously, IANAL. I'm just wondering if the following is possible:

1) Company A has a patent portfolio which is used for defense, which is pretty
common.
2) Company A uses GPLv3 software extensively.
3) Company B, which uses no GPLv3 software, sues Company A over some software
patent.
4) Company A cannot counter-sue or else get screwed by the GPLv3, so they have
no defense against Company B.
5) Friendly GPL-using Company A goes out of business, evil patent-enforcing
Company B gets richer and more powerful thanks to the GPL.

Is this possible?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The patent retaliation clause is much greater than you think.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 06:49 PM EST
The patent retaliation clause does not say that the author can terminate a company's license to use the software if they file a patent lawsuit related to that software. It lets the author terminate the company's license to use the software if they file any lawsuit claiming an infringement of any software patent. The intent is that if HP files a software patent infringement lawsuit then they will immediately have to stop using all GPLv3 code that's released with this clause. All of it! And because of programmers' hostility toward software patents, this clause will rapidly be added to probably 95% of free software released under the GPL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hypothetical: does GPLv3 driver for DRM ASIC
Authored by: funkyj on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 07:40 PM EST
Consider the following hypothetical:

I design a new DRM scheme for media content (e.g. music, movies) and
make it freely available. Lets call this HDRM ( Happy DRM).

HDRM requires a tamper resistant HDRM ASIC to work. Through some
freak occurance, all major hardware manufacturers decide to build
systems that incorporate HDRM. Similarly, many content owners choose
to start selling HDRM content.

The specification for the HDRM ASIC is freely available. Indeed, the
HDRM ASIC's verilog is open source. There is no license preventing a
GPLv3 driver for my DRM ASIC being written for a linux system.

Question 1: Does GPLv3 prevent a GPLed driver being created for HDRM?

More hypothetical background ...

HDRM's intent is to give content owners control over who uses their
content. It is very similar to Apple's FairPlay except for the fact
that it is freely available (the ASIC is open source too) and
unencumbered by patents.

Anyone can open a music store or video store the uses HDRM to restrict
content usage. Assume that it is technically and legally possible to
build such a system.

The point of this question is not to discuss why HDRM is not
technically or legally feasible. Assume that HDRM does a much better
job than Apple's Fairplay at preventing undesired (in the eyes of the
content owner) use by the end user (i.e. it gives the content owners
even more "warm fuzzies" than Fairplay).

Question 2: What if the HDRM ASIC is proprietary but the interface
specification is freely available and has no license preventing an
open source HDRM driver from being written.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This one part seems a bit unclear
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 08:11 PM EST
I'm not sure exactly what the following part of 7e means:

The conditions must limit retaliation to a subset of these two cases:

1. Lawsuits that lack the justification of retaliating against other software
patent lawsuits that lack such justification.

2. Lawsuits that target part of this work, or other code that was elsewhere
released together with the parts you added, the whole being under the
terms used here for those parts.

I can't figure out if "a subset of these two cases" means the added terms
must satisfy both (1) and (2), or if either alone would be sufficient.

[ Reply to This | # ]

60 Day Notification
Authored by: jmart on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 09:27 PM EST
The 60 day notification period is not a time frame in which a violator can come into compliance to avoid having their rights terminated. It is a requirement the copyright holder give notice within 60 days of a violation in order to terminate the license.

If you receive a notice (and the facts bear it out), then your rights are terminated regardless of any steps you take to clean things up after the fact.

Thus if you bring a patent lawsuit you do not lose rights to use all GPL v3 software. Use lose the rights only to the software for which you receive a timely termination notice.

The business friendly aspect of this, is that a violator who mends his ways without getting caught does not have to worry about termination if they remain uncaught for 60 days.

-John

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reactions to the GPLv3 Draft and a GLPv2-v3 Comparative Chart
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 18 2006 @ 09:16 AM EST
the preamble to the GPLv2 says that it is copyrighted by the FSF and that you
can copy and distribute verbatim copies of it, but not change it.

have you broken this licence in writing this comparison and quoting wholesale
from the licence?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"fair use" or other equivalent - is not fair use
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 18 2006 @ 12:14 PM EST
The draft uses the expression "fair use" under 2) Basic Permissions.
Surely this term should have been defined under: Definitions (otherwise, why the
quotation marks?).

My interpretation of '"fair use" or other equivalent', is that
"fair use" is to take the meaning it has in US copyright law, and 'or
other equivalent', means the equivalent rights granted in another jurisdiction.

But it seems totally incorrect to include a US legal expression in the GPL which
has to be meaningful in other countries. Other countries may in fact use the
same words to mean something completely different. (I was involved in a little
discussion earlier with someone over the differing meanings of 'Public Domain'
in the US and UK.)

Words in the GPL should have their ordinary everyday meaning and expressions
which have a particular legal meaning should be avoided. In this case the
situation is worstened because "fair use" IS being used with its legal
meaning, and, it is being used with the legal meaning of one particular,
arbitary, country.

Remember also that the GPL may be discussed in a court where the language used
is not English and where US law is not understood.

My Christmas presents included a copy of, 'The Meaning of Tingo'. Apparently,
the Japanese had a word meaning, 'to try out a new sword on a passer by'.
"Fair use" seems to take on an entirely different meaning in those
circumstances.

Alan(UK)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is the GPLv3 Comment Timeframe?
Authored by: Shayes on Wednesday, January 18 2006 @ 02:35 PM EST
Does anyone know how long the comment phase on the GPLv3 draft is supposed to
last?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why not call it GNPL?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 18 2006 @ 04:34 PM EST
It seems to me that two areas where this draft is going beyond what is necessary
are the patents and DRM. Instead of calling this GPLv3 why not just call it the
Genuinely Nice Person License (GNPL)? If you're not nice you lose the
license...

Okay that is a bit sarcastic but my points are this:

1) Regarding patents, comments above here wonder about using patents in a
counter-suit. Given that this is exactly what IBM did in SCO v IBM would this
automatically void IBM's license to GPLv3 licensed material? This particular
case may be black and white, but what about the next one?

2) What is DRM? Is there a legal definition for it? Which legal system is
that? If I call my content control system CCS or IP Protection Racket or
something else how is it definitely and clearly compatible or not with GPLv3?
Is it something that courts can determine or is it up to the licenser?

- Chugiak

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too Bad Linus Wont go with gpl3
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 19 2006 @ 02:09 AM EST
seems the anti drm of version 3, is enough to really push the OS. Whats he
do,goes with letting them DRM you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )