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
FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3
Monday, September 25 2006 @ 08:45 PM EDT

I am going to reproduce the FSF response to recent misunderstandings about GPLv3 in its entirety. I think you will be able to see how seriously the kernel developers' statement misunderstood what the GPLv3 says and what it does.

Hey, we can't all be lawyers.

: )

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

GPLv3: recent misleading information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result.

We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law.

About The Free Software Foundation The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software — particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants — and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software. Their Web site, located at http://www.fsf.org, is an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support their work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Their headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA.


  


FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3 | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here!
Authored by: jlp on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 09:05 PM EDT
If needed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread!
Authored by: jlp on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 09:07 PM EDT
Put off topic threads here please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More responses from both sides
Authored by: nerd6 on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 09:16 PM EDT
GP Lv3 is to preserve Free Software, not kill it from Danijel Orsolic, Libervis network

An Ode to GPLv2 from Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF is not above "spin"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 10:01 PM EDT
PJ, one of the strengths of the GPL v. 2 is that it was written BY a non-lawyer, FOR non-lawyers. This is one of the reasons that it has stood the test of time in multiple countries. It builds on the foundation of copyright law (which is relatively harmonized internationally these days) with plain English (which most jurisdictions are capable of parsing these days). With this background and context, your flippant comment that "we all can't be lawyers" actually points to a weakness in the draft version 3. If all those smart developers misunderstand, then it can't be as good a license as version 2!

Also, I must point out (although I might be censured for trolling) that, in the past, the FSF has, at certain times and in certain places, taken, ah, liberties with the precise meaning of the GPL when it suited their purposes. ("Spin" is the operative word here, I think.)

For example, if you google for "clisp" and "readline", you will find that Stallman coerced the author of clisp into using the GPL by claiming that if clisp linked with readline, EVEN IF the author wasn't distributing readline, then clisp was violating the GPL. Hmmm, who else do we know who thinks that if your code touches their code, they own all your code?

A similar thing happened with readline and Aladdin Ghostscript (the non-GPL version) -- the use of GPL readline was removed. Even though the Ghostscript author was (rightly) convinced that there was no GPL violation by simply distributing a program which could link to readline, it was easier for him to "fix" the "violation" than to put up with the earache from Stallman. Lest you think Stallman was acting in isolation early on, Eben Moglen implied (being a lawyer, he's too smart to outright lie) the same thing in a slashdo t interview back in 2003.

I deconstructed one of his answers her e.

But since I'm not a lawyer, let me give you a couple of links from an actual lawyer who believes that software which touches other software isn't contaminated:

The unreasonable fear of infection

Derivative works

I think many regular groklaw readers fully understand that if program A interfaces with program B, it doesn't make either program a derivative of the other. It is interesting to point out, however, that the OSI's lawyer embraces this truth much more fully than the FSF's lawyer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 10:21 PM EDT
The only point from the LKML paper I see refuted or clarified (as opposed to
"spun") by the FSF response is the patent language issue. I
appreciate them for providing a clear answer there, but what about the other
issues?

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 10:54 PM EDT
One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement that
James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago I had
signed up for writing another kind of statement entirely: not so much about why
I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great.

(There were other reasons too, but never mind that.)

I didn't get my fat arse off the ground on that, partly exactly because the
developer poll of "which is better" which was related to that issue
distracted me, but mostly because I just seldom write that kind of text - one
thing the kernel work has conditioned me for is that I write _replies_ to email,
I seldom start threads myself (I suspect most of my emails on linux-kernel that
aren't replies are just release announcements).

However, since there was a sub-thread on groklaw about the kernel developers
opinions on the GPLv3, and since I did try to explain it there (as a reply to
postings by PJ and others), and since some of those explanations ended up being
exactly the "why the GPLv2 is so insanely great" that I never wrote
otherwise, I thought I'd just repost that explanation as an alternative view.

So this post is kind of another way to look at the whole GPLv3 issues: not
caring so much about why the GPLv3 is worse, but a much more positive "Why
the GPLv2 is _better_". I suspect some people may have an easier time
seeing and reading that argument, since it's not as contentious.

A lot of people seem to think that the GPLv2 is showing its age, but I would
argue otherwise. Yes, the GPLv2 is "old" for being a copyright
license, but it's not even that you don't want to mess with something that works
- it's that it very fundamentally is such a good license that there's not a
whole lot of room for fixing aside from pure wording issues.

So without further ado, here's my personal "reply" to the the GPLv3
position statement. It's obviously not meant to repudiate James' text in any
way, it's just an alternate view on the same questions..

I made other posts in the same thread on Groklaw thread, not as positive, and
not perhaps as worthy and quotable. This one may be a bit out of context, but I
do think it stands on its own, and you can see the full thread in the "GPL
Upheld in Germany Against D-Link" discussions on Groklaw. The particular
sub-thread was on what happens since we can't easily change update the license,
called "So What is the Future Then?"

(I'd like to point to the groklaw posts, but there doesn't seem to be any way to
point to a particular comment without getting "The URL from Hell", so
it's easier to just duplicate it here).

Linus

---
And thus spake PJ in response:
"GPLv2 is not compatible with the Apache license. It doesn't cover
Bitstream. It is ambiguous about web downloads. It allows Tivo to forbid
modification. It has no patent protection clause. It isn't internationally
useful everywhere, due to not matching the terms of art used elsewhere. It has
no DMCA workaround or solution. It is silent about DRM."

Exactly!

That's why the GPLv2 is so great. Exactly because it doesn't bother or talk
about anything else than the very generic issue of "tit-for-tat".

You see it as a failure. I see it as a huge advantage. The GPLv2 covers the
only thing that really matters, and the only thing that everybody can agree on
("tit-for-tat" is really something everybody understands, and sees the
same way - it's totally independent of any moral judgement and any
philosophical, cultural or economic background).

The thing is, exactly because the GPLv2 is not talking about the details, but
instead talks entirely about just a very simple issue, people can get together
around it. You don't have to believe in the FSF or the tooth fairy to see the
point of the GPLv2. It doesn't matter if you're black or white, commercial or
non-commercial, man or woman, an individual or a corporation - you understand
tit-or-tat.

And that's also why legal details don't matter. Changes in law won't change the
notion of "same for same". A change of language doesn't change
"Quid pro quo". We can still say "quid pro quo" two
thousand years later, in a language that has been dead for centuries, and the
saying is still known by any half-educated person in the world.

And that's exactly because the concept is so universal, and so
fundamental, and so basic.

And that is why the GPLv2 is a great license.

I can't stress that enough. Sure, other licenses can say the same thing, but
what the GPLv2 did was to be the first open-source license that made that
"tit-for-tat" a legal license that was widely deployed. That's
something that the FSF and rms should be proud of, rather than trying to ruin by
adding all these totally unnecessary things that are ephemeral, and depend on
some random worry of the day.

That's also why I ended up changing the kernel license to the GPLv2. The
original Linux source license said basically: "Give all source back, and
never charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the
"never charge any money" part was just asinine. It wasn't the point.
The point was always "give back in kind".

Btw, on a personal note, I can even tell you where that "never charge any
money" requirement came from. It came from my own frustrations with Minix
as a poor student, where the cost of getting the system ($169 USD back then) was
just absolutely prohibitive. I really disliked having to spend a huge amount of
money (to me) for something that I just needed to make my machine useful.

In other words, my original license very much had a "fear and
loathing" component to it. It was exactly that "never charge any
money" part. But I realized that in the end, it was never really about the
money, and that what I really looked for in a license was the
"fairness" thing. And that's what the GPLv2 is. It's
"fair". It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same
thing. It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to be
given back to the common good. You can use the end result any way you want (and
if you want to use it for "bad" things, be my guest), but we ask the
same exact thing of everybody - give your modifications back.

That's true grace. Realizing that the petty concerns don't matter,
whether they are money or DRM, or patents, or anything else.

And that's why I chose the GPLv2. I did it back when the $169 I paid for Minix
still stung me, because I just decided that that wasn't what it was all about.

And I look at the additions to the GPLv3, and I still say: "That's not what
it's all about".

My original license was petty and into details. I don't need to go back to
those days. I found a better license. And it's the GPLv2.

Linus

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 10:57 PM EDT

I already actually replied to PJ in private (and in a separate email to her I promised that I would try to behave well, even if I do tend to find it hard to be too polite), but I might as well comment on this "FSF announcment" here too, since for once I'm on topic! I knew it had to happen evenually! Yee-haaw!

Does anybody else think that the FSF is weasel-wording, when they now say that they don't restrict the "use" of the software. It's not a restriction on "use", when they say that you can't enforce a specific version of it. No, it's now about restricting "distributing it while controlling what you can do with the software".

Yeah, and those deep-fried potato strips are really not "french fries", they're "freedom fries", so it's ok.

Clinton, 1998: "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"

Bush, 2005: "it depends on what the definition of 'torture' is"

FSF, 2006: "it depends on what the definition of 'use' is"

Let the lawyerese word definition games begin! The rules are: the common meaning of the word has no actual relevance, the only thing that matters is if you can weasel yourself out of a tight spot.

We are indeed not all lawyers, and as only a lawyer would tend to weasel out of things by trying to re-define what a common word like 'use' actually means, maybe that is just as well...

(I also think that they are being very misleading when they say that they will respect the decision of anybody who wants to stay with the GPLv2. They say that now, but people reported to me that Eben Moglen was at least discussing ways of trying to change the kernel license against my wishes. Now that the main kernel developers showed some solidarity and they realize that it would look horribly stupid to even try, they suddenly "respect our decisions". Suu-ure.)

We now return you to your scheduled off-topic discussions. Thank you for your patience.

Linus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Other misunderstandings they should have replied to
Authored by: stevenj on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 11:04 PM EDT
The kernel developers' position paper seemed so riddled with distortions, I'm surprised the FSF didn't respond to more of them. For example, consider:
  • Further, the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies so, on such demonstrated pragmatic ground, these clauses are likewise dangerous and difficult to get right and should have no place in a well drafted update to GPLv2.
    • It's outrageous to criticize the FSF for revising their draft in response to comments. Moreover, the public criticisms about GPLv3 forcing developers to give away their private keys, even when users aren't forced to use the keys to run the code, have been based on blatant misreadings of the draft (cough, Linus, cough).
  • Further, the additional restrictions create the possibility of fragmentation of the licensing universes among particular chosen restrictions
    • The additional restictions clause is explicitly written so that all optional restrictions are compatible with one another and with the GPLv3. To suggest that this clause increases incompatibility, when it actually makes the the GPLv3 more compatible with other licenses (e.g. Apache), is absurd.
  • Finally, we recognise that defining what constitutes DRM abuse is essentially political in nature and as such, while we may argue forcefully for our political opinions, we may not suborn or coerce others to go along with them.
    • The GPLv3 does not suborn or coerce anyone to go along with it. If you want to use DRM to control users of your software, you are free to do so—you just can't use my GPLv3 code to do it. Why is refusing to subsidize DRM with my GPLv3 software more "political" than refusing to subsidize closed-source software with my GPLv2 software?

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3
Authored by: treyghyui on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 11:08 PM EDT
One thing I dont see adequately addressed in any of the online brouhaha over
this is a fairly simple rebuttal to a very alarmist point the position paper
describes.

I am referring to the doomsday prediction regarding linux distributions
subsuquent balkanization. Their credentials as kernel developers do not extend
to distribution developers and said distributions have always and already been
involved in the gplv3 process.

They can and have stood up for themselves and there is absolutely no call for
kernel developers to be releasing a kernel developer opinion on that concern.

On a bit of a tangent, the sudden concern of distributions is a bit amusing,
seeing as kernel developers really havent done all that much to make
distributions lives easier since they decided to let 2.6 stability slip and not
caring at all about difficulties maintaining out of kernel tree open source
modules. The kernel developers are not always the linux distributors best
friends.

Furthermore, the kernel developers position paper is irritating, in the sense
that it is an arrogant end run around an elaborate and thoughtfull system
provided by the FSF. Some people prefer their soapbox to alway be in a forum of
their choosing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Total Surrender on DRM issue?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 01:37 AM EDT
You can do what they can do with the program.
And they can't do what you can't do with the program.
That seems to be settled then.
It's a pity that it took so long and inflicted so much internal damage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

War of the worlds
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 05:02 AM EDT
There are a number of conflicts between the FOSS world and the corporate reality. The two main ones being DRM (including «Trusted» computing platform (TPC), copy protection schemes on entertainment media and Tivolisation) and the use of the patent system.

Now, the FSF (and PJ, it seems) finds that these conflicts will hurt FOSS development in the long run. The GPLv3 licence is an escalation of the conflict, aiming to give the community more powerful weapons in the war against the evil empire.

If you engage in a war, you need to be prepared to take losses. You need to be certain that
1: The long-term win will justify the loss
2: You can live with the losses
3: You will win

The problem here is that Linus and the kernel developers don't agree with FSF about the cost / benefit effect, AND they also know that THEY are the ones that will take the losses. Even if FSF prevails, GPLv3 WILL hurt Linux in the short run.

Why is this a fact? Lets look at the two main conflicts separately.

DRM is pushed by the entertainment industry and supported by Microsoft. It is not dependent on Linux. Tivo and other vendors engaged in similar schemes could use Windows instead. In a GPLv3 world, they would have to. This will certainly means higher cost and lower quality for these kinds of devices, and if you want to fight them, that is no bad thing. However, for the Linux community, it means that less resources are used on OpenSource development.

PJ's nightmare is that one bad day, no PC will boot an operating system not binary signed by a major vendor. End of FOSS. The FSF will forbid the use of OSS in such a content. Again, we risk that Windows will prevail in all TCP implementations, less effort is poured into Linux, and more goes to MS.

If we forbid the use of Linux in any TCP implementation, will that stop TPC? It will certainly stop a TCP MS-Linux. But do we really need to do that?

In short, GPLv3 is effective against DRM, but will hinder FOSS development in the short run.

Now, to patents. FSF claims that

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

That may be true. But in the law, nothing is really true until proven in court. Corporate lawyers and CEO's knows that. Many of them will consider this risk higher than the benefits they get by being involved in OSS development. So, during the next 5-10 years, some corporate resources will be lost for the FOSS community because of this.

The FSF gamble is based on the belief that OSS in the long run will be more beneficial for corporations than patent protection, and they may be right, but first GPLv3 needs to be proven in various court cases.

So, to conclude: The real issue here is not the pros and cons about GPLv3. The kernel developers are correct in their identification of problematic issues, but on the other hand the FSF has a very serious war to fight. The real issue is this: Do we believe that DRM and Patents will eventually kill the GPLv2 ecosystem? If we do, then the GPLv3 road is the one to choose, regardless of cost. If not, we don't need it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How are these two statements reconciled?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 05:20 AM EDT
"Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use
restrictions....."

"We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to
"use" free software..."

They seem diametrically opposed to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

what is far worse than DRM....(rant)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 08:03 AM EDT
... is Lawlanguage Restricted Law.
"Buy your lawreader here!"

The message I get from various posts is that layman are not able to understand
the law.
You need a lawyer.

How is that when compared to "everybody is supposed to know the law"

So law by now is inaccessible for the layman.
Just as in the old days when only some could read latin and take care of your
salvation.
Is law supposed to be that? Get your salvation only by us lawyers?
We the lawyers are indispensable?

If a lawyer can explain law to the layman then just as well write it down
clearly immediately.
This is important because the law is there for all people, not just for lovers
of perturbed fancy wording.


[ Reply to This | # ]

What worries me....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 08:31 AM EDT
..about all this, is the sheer amount of disagreement about what the GPLv3
actually says. Here alone, on Groklaw, we have a huge variety of takes on the
meaning of the proposed license.

If this ever gets argued out in a court of law for any reason, I have the nasty
suspicion that it will drag on and on, making the SCO case look as if it was
fast-tracked. I do not believe this will aid the adoption of free software,
which is a cause dear to my heart, as it is to this forum generally. I believe
this possibility of confusion is a major reason why Linus is in favour of the
status quo, the GPLv2 having already stood the test in court, at least in
Germany.

I am not a lawyer, but have represented myself (i.e. no lawyer) in UK courts at
various levels during my life. (Yes, I know, "The man who represents
himself in court has a fool for a client" - but "the man who has no
cash has no lawyer" was more to the point at the time.) Successfully on
each occasion, fortunately. This experience has not filled me with any belief
that courts can penetrate to the core of problems with guaranteed reliability
(not from my cases, but from others I observed while waiting my turn - a random
selection of commercial suits), and on these grounds alone - almost regardless
of the actual merits of the two licenses - I can both sympathise with Linus'
position, and understand that in his position I too would have a strong tendency
towards the continuation of the status quo.

I have a friend who has considerable experience as an expert witness. On one
occasion (a high-profile, big money case) the other side's case was basically a
fabric of lies, backed up by "evidence". It was only by chance she
noticed that a document purporting to come from the US was drawn up in a
European format, on European sized paper manufactured in the UK (immediately
bringing the case to a close on a sizeable offered settlement - she is in fact a
financial, not a document, expert - but nobody else had noticed.) In other
words, court proceedings are as subject to the laws of chance as any other facet
of life - so keep your head out of the lion's mouth wherever possible.

The complications introduced by GPLv3 pose a recognisable danger to free
software - I am sure there are lawyers who will see possibilities of refuting
the extra clauses, thereby bringing down the whole structure (or at least of
convincing their clients they will) - or at the least resurrecting the world of
FUD we are currently escaping from. Maybe in a perfect world populated by
perfect laws and perfect lawyers this could not happen, but this is not the
world we inhabit. (If we did no case would ever come to court.) Those of us who
used Linux in the '90s have no wish to return to the uncertainty and doubt we
felt on legal issues.

A further complication is introduced by significant differences in US and
European law, particularly regarding DRM and patents.

In the UK at least (and AFAIK in Europe generally) there is no legal right to
make a backup copy of software or music you have purchased (although this is
under consideration). In addition there is no inherent illegality in writing or
possessing a "rip" to circumvent DRM (i.e. DeCSS), only in actually
making a copy of the copyright material. This inevitably casts a different light
on DRM provisions.

Europe does not (yet) have software patents - we are fighting this one, I know,
but the present law says no.

Linus is, culturally, a European, and will inevitably have a slightly different
take on these things from Stallman and Moglen. This does not make him stupid (he
self-evidently isn't) or morally inferior. I am sure he understands the issues
completely, and has made what he considers to be the best decision under the
circumstances. The current attempts to patronise him bring no credit on those
involved.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We might be wasting our time on this one
Authored by: hopethishelps on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 09:17 AM EDT

I get the distinct impression that Torvalds has decided not to use GPLv3 no matter what, and possibly to place obstacles in the way of any kernel contributors who do want to use GPLv3.

I do not think his position will be changed by any modification to the draft of GPLv3. I think there's a strong possibility that if the FSF sent Torvalds a copy of GPLv2, with "version 2" replaced by "version 3" in the title, he'd reply that it was unacceptable and he still would stick with v2.

The reason I think that is that his grounds for not liking v3 have shifted considerably since his first comments. His first objections revealed that he simply hadn't understood the text of GPLv3. When this was pointed out to him, he didn't change his position in any way, he just picked something else to complain about. Also, the fact that he has not participated in the comments process for GPLv3 is a bad sign. (The comment history is here.)

So there will be two kinds of GPL license. There's nothing we can do about that. We're just going to have to live with it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3
Authored by: mattw on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 09:35 AM EDT
To rephrase myself in another comment that I think is buried a little too deep.

Don't make the GPL a battlefield for problems (DRM and patents), that are being,
in my humble opinion, well dealt with in other arenas.

The GPLv2 is a nice, clean, concise license.

DRM and patents are best dealt with through political and legal reform, and from
what I've seen, this is working out quite well, it's slow, but there's a number
of articles on this very site that seem to indicate that most people understand
that something is wrong, and that it needs to be fixed, and this is happening on
a global level.

Matt.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Hey, we can't all be lawyers"
Authored by: OrlandoNative on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 10:02 AM EDT
LOL

Actually, even LAWYERS don't always produce unambiguous 'code' - ie legal
documents. We don't have to go very far to see that - look at the Novell - Old
Sco asset purchase agreement.

And, for sure, if all contracts, licenses, and such were well defined and
unabiguous, there'd be no such legal 'niche' as 'contract law'.

So I'm not sold. Until they can state GPLv3 as simply, clearly, and distinctly
as they did GPLv2, IMHO, it's not something I'd trust. After all, 'intent' can
be hard to prove; while cold, dried ink can be hard to argue with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's actually going on here!
Authored by: browncs on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 10:13 AM EDT
(1) RMS and the FSF (which are one and the same for all practical purposes) talk
about "free software". What they are truly fundamentally about is
creating a comprehensive category of software which is completely free from
corporate/business control, and which individual users can completely control in
all aspects as they wish.

His fundamental motivation is an anti-corporation, pro-individual/community
point of view. The fact that the mechanism for enabling his version of
"free software" is the GPL and a common pool of open source is
secondary. If he could have gotten a global law enforced that all corporations
must release all their source code freely on the Internet, that's what he would
have done, instead of GNU and GPL.

RMS is an absolutist on this point. He truly sees this as good vs. evil, and as
a belief system about which there can be no question.

To help understand this, read this interview:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9350

This is where the insistence that DRM and "Trusted Computing" and
software patents must be abolished comes from. These are all tools that
corporations use to protect their property. RMS does not believe they should
have property like this... that it should all be made available to users with no
control by corporations.

(2) Linux is also licensed under the GPL (v2), but comes from a completely
different motivation than RMS. Torvalds simply believes the open-source
development model is the most effective way to create excellent software.
Torvalds is just fine with corporations and businesses using Linux for profit,
even if that means "controlling" some aspects of its use. He
certainly has opinions on DRM, patents, and "Trusted Computing", but
he's not going to let those get in the way of Linux development.

(3) So now starts the struggle for control of "what is the meaning of free
software". RMS is clearly trying to re-establish his vision of the
principles involved by pushing through GPL v3, because he's seen GPL v2 used in
ways that offend his principles deeply. Is it too late? Has the FOSS movement
taken off to an extent that he no longer controls it? Stay tuned.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never sign a contract you don't understand.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 01:27 PM EDT
An old civics lesson I was taught stated that if I didn't understand a contract,
I shouldn't sign it or otherwise agree to it. If the deal still interested me, I
should pay for legal advise - and not accept free advice, since the persons
providing it would have no incentive to provide unbiased advice.

This appears to be what is happening here. Which is all good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everybody: Flamethrowers at 50 paces, NOW!
Authored by: grundy on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 05:18 PM EDT

1) We all need to be sure that both code licensed 'GPLv2 only' and code
licensed 'GPLv3' may be freely mixed in any distribution.

2) The sales of Tivos, Cellphones &c. are governed by Licenses and/or Laws;
to ensure that a user is as free as the manufacturer and no more would require
that the user be informed of and subject to the same restrictions, and it is not
unreasonable for the manufacturer to require a signed 'hold harmless' agreement.

3) All I know about patents is that the existing system is seriously broken.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Confessions of a GPL hater
Authored by: Canyonrat on Tuesday, September 26 2006 @ 08:01 PM EDT
I admit to having been one of those 'GPL Haters' that PJ has mentioned. The
reason that I disliked the GPL was simply that it seemed to be a case of bait
and switch. A friend was actually victimized by this.

Version 2 of the GPL starts out:
"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."

In fact, version 2 of the GPL did not grant rights exclusively to natural
people.
Rather it grants rights to legal persons which includes corporate,
educational and governmental instutions. Your employer or school is
perfectly free under version 2 to mandate that you use programs that you
are not free to share and change, even if they were derived from programs
that you had originally released under the GPL.

The new version fixes this glaring deficiency. Compared to that, all the
objections seem like picking very small nits.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.07 seconds