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
Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3?
Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:12 AM EDT

****Questions and comments regarding GPLv3 draft 3 for FSF's Brett Smith go here. Note that there are new articles just below this one. We'll keep collecting your comments on GPLv3 until next Friday, and so I'll keep bumping this up to the top until then. So, you have to look below this one to find the new materials.****

Well, we've had some time to think about the new draft of GPLv3, and many of us have some questions. There is a new GPLv3 draft 3 FAQ that answers some questions that have already come up, like what do the brackets mean in the draft (that they are possible inclusions, but not certain - more on that in a minute).

But here's something even better. Brett Smith, Licensing Compliance Engineer for the FSF, invites your questions. Anything you'd like to know, you can ask. That way, we can avoid spinning our wheels and get certain answers to any questions we may have.

I'll leave the questions period open for a week and so I'll keep bumping this article up to the top of the line for seven days, and during that period you can keep adding questions or comments also. By that I mean that if you see a problem with the wording, or a loophole, please bring it up. Also, if you really dislike something in this draft or have a better idea, now is the time to raise the issue. This is still just a draft.

Keep in mind that all the corporate players have been putting their wants on the table, which you can discern from the rationale document. If you wish the license to reflect your needs and preferences as well, you need to express them, so that the license reflects the wishes all the members of the community. Or forever hold your peace.

Just kidding. Like *that* would ever happen.

At the end of the week, he'll provide answers.

Now, about those brackets in Section 11, here's what the FAQ says:

How do the new terms of section 11 affect the Microsoft-Novell deal?

We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the fourth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes under GPLv3.

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

There is some bracketed text at the end of that paragraph which would let companies distribute GPLv3 software even if they have made such an arrangement, as long as the deal was made before March 28. A number of companies in the free software community are concerned that the language we've proposed would also target them because of other agreements they've made, like broad patent cross-licenses, that don't harm the community. This would have the side effect of allowing Novell to distribute software under GPLv3. We are still evaluating the risks and costs associated with this text, and look forward to additional feedback.

My personal feedback on the bracketed text in paragraph 5 is that we need to craft some precise language that will make it impossible for Novell to distribute software under GPLv3 unless it gets out of that noxious patent deal, while allowing nontoxic agreements to stand. My reasoning is that when folks get cute with the GPL, there should be consequences. It should never pay off. I see that draft 3 will result in consequences for Novell over time, but I'm not so sure from a PR standpoint that observers will connect the dots, and I think a statement needs to be made.

Otherwise, folks may get tempted to get cute over and over. By folks, I mean some corporate folks. If ethics, the GPL, and the longterm interests of the FOSS community are behind door one and a bag of money is behind door two, they choose door two obsessively, like endorphin-addicted mice that press the lever to get more endorphins instead of food and water, until they die. And one thing I've learned from doing Groklaw is that executives may sometimes opt to do very well personally, even as their company is kamikazied into a hole in the ground. So one must be realistic about what the dangers could be. I think making a clear statement now could prevent a lot of trouble down the road.

Paragraph 4 means Microsoft won't be able to get cute in the same way over GPLv3 code, but unless the kernel moves to v3, it can still do so over v2 code, or someone else's fancypants lawyers may have a different brainstorm for yet another diseased way to exploit a loophole we haven't noticed yet. So my question, to get the ball rolling, is would it be possible to simply mention the Novell-Microsoft deal by name and carve it out of the brackets? Once again, here is the wording of paragraph 5 of Section 11, and the brackets I'm talking about are at the very end:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License, [unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007].

More reactions here. And here's a criticism of this draft having to do with the "ASP loophole". Microsoft finds it "unfortunate... that the FSF is attempting to use the GPLv3 to prevent future collaboration among industry leaders to benefit customers." Heh heh. Unfortunate for whom? That's the whole idea, bub. Oops. I mean, oh industry leader that is world-renowned for always seeking to benefit customers.

Please know that collaboration is fine, and in fact the only one holding that back is you, as far as I can tell. FOSS code is open and naked to the world already. So collaborate away. Really. Any time you are ready. I think the EU Commission has in mind sometime soon.

The issue is the patent agreement, not collaboration.

Where do Microsoft execs go to learn to speak like that? The sentence must make sense, while stating something that isn't quite so, or leaving out the most important bits. I think it must be as hard to learn as drinking water upside down to cure hiccups.


  


Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3? | 730 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 09:48 AM EDT
If any...

---
Any horticultural action not involving a chainsaw isn't gardening...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread.....
Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT
Please comply with the Important Stuff at the bottom...

---
Any horticultural action not involving a chainsaw isn't gardening...

[ Reply to This | # ]

let's get the major ones out of the way - User product
Authored by: Illiander on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT
I've said this before here, on the official comments page, and I'll say it again
here as well (maybe there'll be a better answer here):

Why do you feel the need to draw lines between different locations of licencee?

I've read the rationale, and I'm going to quote freedom zero at everyone, and
remind you that this is a licence written by the Free Software Foundation, it's
a free software licence, not an open source licence, and should remain such.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

read that? ANY PURPOSE. not home use only, not non-commercial use only, not
non-buisness use only, AMY PURPOSE!

If a buisness doesn't want control of their hardware, they should rent that
hardware. And I seriously doubt that any buisness really wants manufacturers to
have control over their hardware. Manufacturers who are worried about
modifications to their software causing them liabilities should put it bluntly
(at point of sale) that they are not responsible if the thing they sell is
modified in any way.

I know Tivo-type things could get round this by 'renting' their hardware, but
'right of possession and use' will cause far more problems. And if you want to
mod your box you make sure you buy it outright, and don't rent it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

13. Use with the Affero General Public License.
Authored by: Wardo on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT
Why does this other Free Software license need to be referenced by name, and not the others?

Provided that linking a GPL3 program to some other Free Software licensed code doesn't violate that license. Wouldn't redistribution of the combined work fall under the compilation clause in section 5?

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 compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
(Emphaisis added.)

Wardo

---
Wardo = new user();
Wardo.lawyer = FALSE;
Wardo.badTypist = TRUE; //don't bother to point out tyops
Wardo.badSpeller = TRUE; //or spelling misteaks

[ Reply to This | # ]

why are you allowing additional restrictions to be removed?
Authored by: Illiander on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:03 AM EDT
that renders the ability to add restrictions compleatly meaningless

[ Reply to This | # ]

ASP issue does matter to me.
Authored by: markpmc on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:16 AM EDT
I'm actually working a cool little app, that could be wrapped up and delivered
as a service. Frankly I've held back on publishing the app since IMO the only
way to block it now would be to do a 'dual' license ala MySql. I'd rather not
bother w/ this approach.

As long and I can use GP3 version and some optional language to accomplish the
same thing then it's a good idea. As an Author it's my choice to require the
sources to be available, not yours.

That said, ASP delivery does equal distribution, so the sources should be
available. To be clear you are distributing the front end app (not the 2 tiers
behind it).

Mark

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Kernel
Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:35 AM EDT
Pressing Linus to move the kernel to GPLv3 is futile. Despite his tactful, fence-mending remarks about the improvements made for the curent draft, it is clear that the DRM-related use restrictions in v3 still make the licence philosophically repugnant to him.

Pretending that there's no issue here, and pressing the kernel developers to just get over their petty concerns and sign on with v3 is an obvious non-starter, which is likely to reignite the polemical tone of the previous discussions sooner rather than later. They don't believe the DRM concerns are petty -- they believe they are fundamental. They want a distribution license, not a use license.

The depressing thing is that v3 contains strong measures for dealing with the real and immediate threat -- patents. Linus is on record as liking that part, and regarding it as decidedly useful. Everyone can get behind the patent language. But the DRM-related stuff is a deal-killer.

I wish there were some kind of separability of the clauses, or at least a GPLv2.5 with the patent language and a DRM option at the distributor's discretion (I have no idea whethere this would be legally feasible in a license). I bet the kernel would be relicensed in a year, if such a thing were available.

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPLv2 - GPLv3 compatibility
Authored by: nb on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:40 AM EDT
Is it ok to distribute a program some components of which are GPLv2-licensed and
some components are GPLv3-licensed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

6.[3] Conveying Non-Source Forms.
Authored by: grouch on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:41 AM EDT
Thanks for the opportunity.

6.[3] Conveying Non-Source Forms.

[...]

c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.

-- GPLv3 - Third discussion draft

What does "occasionally" mean, there? A cpu occasionally receives an interrupt. The moon occasionally eclipses the sun.

---
-- grouch

http://edge-op.org/links1.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Occasionally - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:43 PM EDT
    • Occasionally - Authored by: grouch on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 09:04 PM EDT
      • Occasionally - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 08:01 PM EDT
a request or suggestion
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT
i dont have a question .. i have a request/suggestion.

make GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2, or even better (and more important, also to
the FSF) make it DFSG compatible. In other words, remove all "use
restrictions".

Otherwise we'll have the strange situation that the only distribution that could
be called a "GNU/Linux operating system" will not be able to include
any GPLv3 licensed software at all ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Breeder's Rights
Authored by: Winter on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 10:51 AM EDT

I knew that the GPL could be used for many types of works beyond computer code (I did so myself). However, the formulation in the new GPLv3 draft (rationale page 37) suggested some new subject matter (emphasis is mine):

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works1.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it the works.
footnote 1 This sentence and the reference to "other practical works" in the following sentence make clear that the GPL can be used for non-software works.

A highly politicized area where copyright like restrictions and patents are indeed harming people is the field of Plant Breeder's Rights which give a plant breeder a copyright like monopoly on plant varieties. It has been no exception that farmers and plant breeders in the developing world have developed new pest and stress resistant varieties of important crop plants, only to find them being hijacked by a commercial breeder who starts enforcing Plant Breeder's Rights against the original breeders. Patents on genetically modified plants are a dime a dozen. Many large companies also produce Tivo like restrictions on seed. For instance, by manipulating the plants to be sterile when raised from their seeds.

While reading the rationale document, I was wondering whether the GPL could be used to cover new plant varieties? And whether it would need adaptations?

This would be very helpful for governemental, NGO, and community projects who develop new varieties. Especially as most farmers in the world will have to cope with climate change.

Rob

---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:09 AM EDT
Why would you have a phrase like "with a third party that is in the
business of distributing software" in paragraph five of Section 11?

If I'm MS, wouldn't I just license a few critical patents to a patent troll and
let them do the the dirty work?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sect. 11, Para. 5
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:15 AM EDT
Is this section really needed in the first place?

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the M$-Novell deal as much as anyone, but this paragraph seems out of place in the license. It seems to me that the rest of section 11 already covers this issue.

I don't think there's any harm in having it. It's just that I like keeping things as simple as possible, and this paragraph seems like clutter.

Annie No-Miss

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happened to automatic termination?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:20 AM EDT
Automatic termination seems to me to be one of the most important clauses in the
GPL. The only thing that gives you rights to do things with GPL licensed
software is the GPL - violate that license and your rights are automatically
terminated. No need for some individual software developer to notice that some
large corporation violated the license and have to expend time and effort
figuring out who and how to send a notification letter to, just violate the
license and loose your rights. Nice, clear, plain, and simple for all involved.
We can see the importance of this in IBM's counter claims against SCO. SCO
breached the GPL on the Linux kernel, automatically terminating their license,
and IBM can pursue their counter claims of copyright violation for SCO's
continued distribution of IBM's contributions to the Kernel.

Removing automatic termination from the GPL seems a serious error given the
breadth of people who contribute to GPL licensed software (many of whom don't
have the resources to identify and notify violators) and the difficulty of
determining if a proprietary package contains GPL code in violation of the
copyright.

What then is the rationale for removing automatic termination, and why should we
wish to license code under the GPL V3 if it fails to include an automatic
termination clause?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Life critical devices...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT
Let's say that I create medical device, and I want to use some GPL v3 licensed code as part of it. Let's also say that this medical device has the potential to kill someone if something goes wrong. Needless to say, I don't want just anyone putting software on the device, but I want to be able to issue code patches to be applied to existing devices.

I'll want to follow the terms of the license, but allowing some arbitrary person to install new software on the device just isn't an option. Is there a way to make this work within the terms of GPL v3?

Annie No-Miss

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some concerns
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:31 AM EDT
I've heard it eluded to that Microsoft already has in place patent agreements
with businesses over the use of Linux and other opensource software already.
How do you protect against that? If you're in business and a company like
Microsoft approaches you and says your use of that software infringes our IP.
Pay us and as a stipulation, keep it a secret. How do you respond to that or as
a community, protect against that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Questions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:41 AM EDT
1)DRM free operating system will it ever happen with linux.
Does giving the corporates what they want tell you that i don't want it?(aka
pandering to there needs is exactly how we got the MS mess)
E2)nd users that we are we also have concerns about the MS deal are you activly
looking at the entire agreement for ways they might find other end rounds?
3)The MS statement about "if your going to pirate please pirate us is sad
to hear but it holds the truth of why they continue to be popular. Are you going
to keep this free as in beer so it can stomp them?
4)When is the final draft due and where can real end users go to have a input
(more a groklaw question)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it necessary to reference specific laws?
Authored by: hawk on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:53 AM EDT

I dislike GPL3 for its apparent inability to say plainly what I want as an author (really: "share and be nice"). Instead it seems to cover a multitude of special cases; a distinct weakness compared to GPL2 and something any (good) programmer should dislike. In programming it is invariable a symptom that your level of abstraction is too low.

The worst examples of this are the reference to specific laws. I do think a reference to WIPO is much better than the US-only DMCA (I would never pick GPL3 with that clause for a new project), but it is a bad approach. The reference to Magnuson-Moss is also problematic, but not quite as bad since (as I read it) it is a fall-back.

With this out of the way, here are my questions:

  • Is it really necessary to reference any specific (and therefore fragile) law?
  • Are we really incapable of bluntly stating our intent from basic near-universal principles alone? (Examples are "copyright" and patents".)
  • Is the concept of "free software" not basic enough to be express in a legally binding way without these references?
  • Are we willing to initiate an arms-race with lawyers and lobbyists payed to subvert our work?
  • How long do you hope the GPL3 will be able to protect our software unmodified? 15 years (like GPL2)? 15 month?
  • Does the FSF think we could "win"? (I use "win" in the sense that software would be "effectively free" as long as the authors kept applying the license patches from the FSF, say, every Tuesday.)

    • I think we should recall that people only very recently tried to "get cute" with the GPL (as PJ puts it). I think we should use our principal strength: our intension express principles that are intuitive and nearly universal (to repeat: "share and be nice").

    Please remove the references to specific laws. If you feel it is impossible to obtain our objectives without them, then we have already lost and there is no further loss incurred by removing them and thus simplifying the already very complex license.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Magnuson-Moss Consumer Product
    Authored by: stephen_pollei on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT

    Yes I've been trying to learn more about what would and what wouldn't be considered a consumer product. One thing I found said it's a case-by-case issue. Do there exist any bright-line rules to categorize a tangable product into a household as opposed to say maybe a industrial, or professional product? Do you have a list of electronic products that you consider to be consumer products? Do you have a list of electronic products you don't consider to be consumer products? Do you have a list of border-line products? For this list of border-line products could you provide a couple walk-through case-studies showing what method you would use to make a determination of it's categorization?

    wiki Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
    federal trade commision: warranty
    uscode title15 ch50
    Consumer Product
    lemon law guide on the warranty act

    The determination whether a good is a consumer product requires a factual finding, on a case-by-case basis. Najran Co. for General Contracting and Trading v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 1081 (S.D. Ga. 1986)

    Cohen, 264 F. Supp. 2d at 619; Najran Co. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 1081, 1100 (S.D. Ga. 1986); and Ryan, 869 A.2d at 951. ; Voelker v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 353 F.3d 516, 523 (7th Cir. 2003); DiCintio, 768 N.E.2d at 1127.

    The Federal Trade Commission has promulgated guidelines giving examples of "consumer products" that fit the MMWA's definition and application. The examples include "boats, photographic film and chemicals, clothing, appliances, jewelry, furniture, typewriters, motor homes, automobiles, mobile homes, vehicle parts and accessories, stereos, carpeting, small aircraft, toys, and food." Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: Implementation and Enforcement Policy, 40 Fed. Reg. 25,721, 25,722 (1975). The legislative history of the MMWA lists similar examples of consumer products: "washing machines and dryers, freezers, ranges, refrigerators, water heaters, bed coverings, blenders, broilers, can openers, coffee makers, corn poppers, floor Page 22 polishers, frypans, hair dryers, irons, toasters, vacuum cleaners, waffle and sandwich grills, air conditioners, fans, radios, televisions, and tape recorders." H.R. Rep. No. 1107, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 4, reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7702, 7705-06.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3?
    Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 12:33 PM EDT
    We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the fourth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes under GPLv3.

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

    There is some bracketed text at the end of that paragraph which would let companies distribute GPLv3 software even if they have made such an arrangement, as long as the deal was made before March 28. A number of companies in the free software community are concerned that the language we've proposed would also target them because of other agreements they've made, like broad patent cross-licenses, that don't harm the community. This would have the side effect of allowing Novell to distribute software under GPLv3. We are still evaluating the risks and costs associated with this text, and look forward to additional feedback.

    I have three questions about this.

    Question number one: if the GPL3 is incompatible with non-problematic patent agreements, could this be misused to make it harder for corporations to join the community? Imagine corp A does not distribute Fress Software today. Some unfriendly organisations may trick corp A (after the date limit) into patent cross-license agreements that are incompatible with the GPLV3. Then corp A is unable to change its mind at a later time and distribute Free Software. This could be the basis of an attempt to limit the community growth.

    Question number two: What if someone structure his organisations into separate parts where the owners of the patents that sign cross-licensing deals is a different legal entity than the parts of the organisations that depend of GPL3 software? For example you could have a holding where there is a patent troll outfit and a software development outfit and all software patents on the development outfit products are transfered to the troll outfit before they are licensed to third parties. The software development can use GPL3 software a lot, but the troll outfit never uses any. This is an example among other possible scenarios.

    I ask because I think you have to be a GPL3 licensee for this section 11 to be applicable to you. If the patent licensing outfit is a seperate legal entity, it will not hold a GPL3 license and will not be bound by its terms. In this case couldn't the patent arm get to sign cute patent agreements with third parties?

    Question number three: If it is OK to let Novell/Microsoft get away with paragraph 5 before the cutoff date because paragraph 4 is good enough, why isn't it OK to also let them get away after the cutoff deal? I ask because depending on the answer to first two questions paragraph 5 may hurt Free Software friends more than it hinders those getting cute with the GPL.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Comment About Patent Deals
    Authored by: kitterma on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 12:36 PM EDT
    While I'm certainly not a fan of the Novell deal, I think that trying to craft
    specific language that applies to that deal and that deal only is a mistake.

    It is either reasonable to exempt non-compliant pre-existing deals or not (I
    think not is the right answer, but am not certain). Trying to craft a special
    non-exemption for Novell will add significant complexity. This is not a good
    idea.

    The simplicity of GPLv2 is one of its beauties. GPLv3 is no doubt going to end
    up more complex, but it needs to be as simple as possible. Simplicity is hard
    to achieve, but very important.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A clafirication Request
    Authored by: Sesostris III on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:09 PM EDT
    Could I ask for a clarification? It seems to me on reading the relevant bits of
    the GPLv3 that the GPLv3 patent provisions only cover GPLv3 code. Is this right?
    E.G.:

    Is it the case that if there is a patent agreement in place that covers code
    that is NOT GPLv3 code, and this patent agreement does NOT cover GPLv3 code,
    then there is no problem?

    Or is it the case that with a patent agreement in place that covers code that is
    NOT GPLv3 code, and an explicit statement to the effect that this agreement does
    NOT cover GPLv3 code, that there is still a problem distributing GPLv3 code?

    To give a possible example; if Novell were to say that their patent agreement
    with Microsoft only covers Mono (not licensed under GPLv3) and not GCC et al
    (GPLv3), would Novell be in the clear? Or would they still be barred from
    distributing GCC et at?

    Can patent agreements specify which bits of code they cover?

    IANAL (and live the UK, where we don't have software patents, and so no need for
    patent agreements - at the moment!)

    Sesostris III

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A covenant is not a license.
    Authored by: abraxus on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:19 PM EDT
    "You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License , [unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007]."

    I don't see how this wording in any way affects a covenant provided by a third party to users. It clearly refers to a license but I am sure I read somewhere that the way they got around GPL2 was by avoiding a license and creating a "covenant to customers" instead. I don't see how this is addressed in any way here. Maybe it is just semantics but after reading some of PJ's articles titles it seems that semantics are rather important when you get in front of a judge.

    I also don't see why "that is in the business of distributing software" is included here. It seems incredibly limiting for no apparent good reason. It sounds like something somebody asked for specifically but I can't for the life of me see why. What am I missing here?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Sec 11 para 3
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:20 PM EDT
    Sec 11 para 3

    "If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and
    the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free
    of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available
    network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause
    the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) disclaim the patent license
    for this particular work, or (3) ... extend the patent license to downstream
    recipients ... "


    I parse this as: IF ( rely-on-patent-license AND source-not-available ) THEN...

    but the source *is* required to be available (by section 6). What is the
    difference between this and the section 6 requirement (other than "free of
    charge")?

    As to option (1), how does having the source help with patents?

    As to options (2) and (3), if you don't hold the patent yourself, then how can
    you disclaim or extend the patent license, for yourself or for others?


    Sec 11 para 5

    "You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement
    with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which
    you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of
    conveying the work..."

    Question: Why limit this to third parties that are in the business of
    distributing software? What if the third party's only business is collecting and
    licensing patents? (someone else already asked this)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Installation Information loophole
    Authored by: songmaster on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:21 PM EDT
    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source.

    This requirement doesn't seem watertight to me. I wrote a comment on the draft website, but I'd be interested in other peoples opinions including a comment from Brett.

    The obvious hole to me is that there are no limits given on what they can require the user to do in following the installation procedure. A Tivo-like distributor could specify a procedure in its Installation Information whereby all binaries to be installed on the device have to be sent to it to be digitally signed by their private key before they will run. Their procedure could work perfectly well, and providing it does I don't see how this requirement would break the terms of the GPLv3 at all, although it seems to be breaking its spirit.

    If I have to send my binaries to them for signing, they'd also be entitled to get my source changes since I'm now propagating a copy of code that is licensed under the GPLv3. Could they require me to sign over any additional rights to my modifications as part of that installation procedure?

    - Andrew

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Question or suggestion: Harmonize the GPL and LGPL in one license
    Authored by: veatnik on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT
    (Disclaimer; I have not read the latest draft yet - printed and sitting on my
    desk. Also this is my own opinion as a user of FSF software since about 1986 and
    Linux since 1992. Not that on my employer.)

    This is in my opinion a very important item that was not addressed in earlier
    drafts.

    Question: Why not harmonize the GPL and LGPL into a single license.

    Reasoning. I have always thought that in most usage a court could/might hold the
    GPL and LGPL as (roughly) equivelent when the software licensed is a library. By
    definition a library is ment to be linked to other code. Many commercial
    Libraries can be purchased and are used in software products written by people
    other then the authors of the Library. Linking to a library that you did not
    develop is standard practice in the industry. The final work is often licensed
    under a license other then the Library license. I have alway felt that in the
    case of a library under GPL instead of LGPL that a court might actually hold the
    GPL as being similar to the LGPL without the static linking clause. Or in other
    words it might actually be held as being less strict rather then more strict.
    Let's just add the static linking clause to the GPL for works distributed as a
    library and be done!

    Reason to allow GPLed code to be linked to (any) other code under any license.
    There is a benefit to society as a whole by reducing the developement cost and
    encoraging both use of open statndards that these libraries implement and also
    encouraging use of and cooperative development of a standard implementation.

    Needed clauses to allow this:
    If the licensed software product is a library it is intended to be linked to
    other software. For libraries this is allowed even when the entire work is not
    licensed under the GPL. If the entire new work (containing this (software
    product (library) is not licensed under the GPL the following additional
    criteria must be met to distribute the combined work.
    1. Source code for the modified or unmodified (GPL software product) library
    must be made available as specified in section ---
    2. If the combined binary is supplied as a statically linked work then all
    neccessary object files must be provided so that a customer can modify the
    library and relink to create a new binary.
    Whatever else is needed perhaps specific requirements on the dynamically linked
    situation?

    If it is really important (to the library authors) to get adoption of such a
    library as a standard over preserving the right (of an end user) to fix bugs in
    the library and relink. Then I suppose they can modify the GPLv3 they use to
    remove the linking requirement. Personally I think this is a bad idea. If a
    comercial vendor is not willing to allow bug fixes outside their proprietary
    code then I don't want their product. (Been bit before ;-) (actually this is the
    reason I choose GPLed software, if available, first over anything else.)

    Other issues:
    If a (GPLed) project is implemented/distributed as a main application and a
    group of supporting libraries in separate directories each with a separate build
    subsystem we would need to provide a default interpritation. Can each separate
    library subdirectory be treated under this license as a separable library or is
    the project a work as a whole meaning that linking to said libraries is only
    allowed for other GPLed works. I prefer the first (seperable) interpretation
    unless there is something to specify the more strict interpretation.

    Can or should the GPL be written so this same concept of protection covers other
    more recent forms of (linking or) cooperation between separatly written software
    modules?
    I'm Thinking of HTML XML and web services but there are very likely other
    possible issues in the wild and wooly world of software today.

    (Now I wait for someone to tell me this is already covered - I hope! I'd better
    start reading the new draft and get up to speed. Thanks for answering our
    questions.)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The two-company switch
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT
    I think I saw this on Slashdot, but let's bring it up here.

    Company A makes a consumer product (vacuum cleaner, personal video recorder,
    coffeepot, whatever) that uses GPLv3 software. They do not sell directly to the
    consumer, but rather to distributors. With each shipment, they include
    Corresponding Source and Installation Instructions, to stay in compliance.

    Distributor B takes possession of thousands of products from A, and puts the box
    with the Corresponding Source and Installation Instructions in a cabinet
    somewhere, and proceeds to sell the products without including those things.
    Net result: the consumer gets an appliance with GPLv3-covered software, without
    source code or installation instructions. (To add to the problem, if I as a
    consumer copy the software as it exists in the device to give to a friend to
    analyze, I'm in violation.)

    After all, A has done what is required of it. B is not in the business of doing
    anything it needs a license for, but is rather just reselling things provided by
    A. If I have legitimate copies of a book, or song, I can sell those as I wish
    with regard to copyright. I just can't make any more copies without some sort
    of license. Therefore, B need not accept the GPLv3 to operate, and is not bound
    by its restrictions. B is free to distribute source and instructions (and A
    cannot forbid it in an agreement), but it may well not be in B's interest, as B
    may think it will add to support costs and possible complaints.

    IANAL (which may be painfully obvious to somebody who is), but this is a
    scenario where it seems to me the spirit can be completely subverted while
    adhering to the letter.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Another Question: Leagally required binary blobs...
    Authored by: veatnik on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 01:58 PM EDT
    I need to look in the new draft to see if there is anything about GPL software
    linking ot binary blobs. Perhaps someone could point me to a section or comment
    on what we should have.

    My biggest concern is for cases where such a thing might be legally required,
    such as the wireless card drivers and FCC rules.

    There might be other cases that are allowable for compatibility reasons?

    To me the issue here is that the API that the GPL software ties into on the blob
    really should be documented in open documentation so that users that bug fix the
    software they use will have the ability to know how to fix it. Just wondering if
    this is covered?

    I think if the ability to tie into blobs when needed is not allowed then we are
    really tieing our own hands as far as functionality and compatibility are
    concerned. Without this there will be needed functions that GPLed software will
    be unavailable to fill.

    Seems like there should be a reasonable way to handle this.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    DRM scenario
    Authored by: iabervon on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:04 PM EDT
    Tivo produces two hardware devices with identical processor and peripherals,
    each of which stores its code in flash. Both of them take in new firmware images
    from the user, but one of them additionally takes a signature which only Tivo
    can create, and only installs the image if the signature verifes. Neither
    device, as constructed, uses anybody else's copyrighted work.

    Tivo writes some lousy firmware for these that doesn't do anything useful, but
    doesn't use anybody else's code. All this firmware does is let people fetch
    firmware images (and signatures), and provide them to the hardware for upgrade.

    Tivo releases enough documentation that people get Linux working on the unlocked
    hardware. Other people turn this into a great system. Everybody able to get the
    unlocked hardware (which is not everybody who might want it) is happy, and can
    customize it to do what they want.

    Tivo downloads some images and the corresponding sources from other people and
    finds images that don't do anything Tivo wants to prevent. Tivo doesn't accept
    the GPL, because, since they do not intend to modify, copy, or distribute the
    covered work, they don't have to. Tivo releases signatures for the firmware
    images they like. It points customers at these signatures and at their author's
    sites (since it can't legally distribute the images itself).

    (This situation is even more likely if the locked and unlocked hardware are by
    different companies, and the locked hardware is expensive, while the unlocked
    hardware is provided to end users free with some service.)

    Now, the only people who are bound by the terms of the GPL are the people
    writing firmware images, and they're releasing everything they have. Also, their
    firmware is designed for unlocked hardware, which is what they're developing on,
    and what they probably expect users to have. Tivo doesn't need a license to
    hyperlink to firmware images other people publish, and Freedom 0 means they can
    read the source, test it, and produce signatures. Tivo owns the hardware
    designs, including the signature checking device, outright.

    So I don't see how any possible GPL which follows Freedom 0 is going to affect
    what is probably the laziest strategy for getting locked hardware running
    specific versions of GPL software. It seems to me like anything that could be
    prohibited by the license is actually less objectionable than the behavior that
    doesn't involve the license at all.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A couple things...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:32 PM EDT
    I said this before on a different GL story, but I do wonder why we're moving
    away from ties to US law with respect to distribution (replacing that term with
    "convey") while at the same time, making explicit ties to the M-M
    Warranty Act? While I'm sure that it's good precedent, is there no way we can
    confer the benefits of it without an explicit tie-in to the act?

    Also, what are we going to do about the FUD that Microsoft will put up over the
    MS-Novell deal? I think it's already clear that they paint the GPL as
    "anti-business" but here, they'll probably try to sell it as a risk
    that the GPL can be amended to punish you if you use it. Never mind that that's
    largely ridiculous, only applies to new code, and would only ever happen if you
    were trying to do something to extort free software users, I don't doubt that
    they're already preparing a media blitz over it.

    Is any PR machinery in place, yet, to handle this? After reading about the
    leaked memo about the Wired writer, I wouldn't doubt that they have a dozen
    people watching the story now, ready to put out press releases immediately and
    prepared to go on TV, distribute talking points, and whatever else.

    Yeah, it could be that I'm paranoid here, but it's so obvious that it's in MS's
    interests to FUD this no matter what the GPL v3 does that we ought to be ready.
    I think we're okay for now because it's still mostly off the radar, but it won't
    stay that way, so if we come out against it, we'd better be ready to come
    swinging. If we don't, they'll work overtime to bury us in FUD.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Most important questions from a developer
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:56 PM EDT
    Is it really true that if you use a program you wrote yourself that uses no GPL
    code, if that code happens to use the OUTPUT of a GPLv3 program, then that means
    your own code therefore becomes GPLv3 as well?

    I've read this many places. and if it's true, it's the ultimate viral
    marketing.

    eg:

    gplv3_program > my_commercial_program

    does my program then become "infected" by GPL?

    How much GPLv3 code can I use before I must declare all of my code GPL?

    Can I use ONE line of code?

    what if I write 3 million lines of code, and "borrow" one line from a
    GPLv3 project? is my code now "infected"?

    What about one module, or library, or object file?

    What if I happen to like a variable name someone used? then what?

    where is the line drawn? and how can we be sure?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What does the FSF have against Apache
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT
    This is a topic that nobody has picked up on yet, but it is quite explicit in
    the FSF drafts: GPL3 is incompatible with the Apache Software Foundation 2.0
    license.

    Now, GPL 1 has been incompatible with ASF2 because the apache license said
    "sue for patent infringement and your rights to this app go away".
    GPL3 has a similar clause, and everyone -including the apache people working
    with the FSF- thought all would be well. But come the next draft, no the FSF
    come up with some other argument against the apache license that they did not
    even bring up with the Apache folk.

    now, this may seem minor, but in the Java world it is not. Sun's JVM uses Apache
    code for XML support, so sun cannot release the JDK under the GPL -as promised-
    until the two are compatible.

    What game is the FSF trying to play here?

    -steve

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Frustratingly ambiguous
    Authored by: EJN on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 04:14 PM EDT

    Amidst all the cheers about the anti-Microsoft/Novell provisions, I'd like to express some concerns about GPLv3.

    To set the context, I'll note that I'm a lawyer who represents a lot of software companies, some of whom have open-sourced their products, others who incorporate open source into their products, and, yes, some proprietary companies.

    For all its merits, GPLv2 was less than clear in certain aspects. I've spent a lot of time, for instance, helping clients understand whether something is a derivative work or "a work based on the Program." But over the years, we all got a level of comfort with the document. There were disagreements on the edges, sure, but there was a general consensus about how the GPLv2 worked.

    The object of revising GPLv2 was ostensibly to improve and clarify it. With respect, this latest draft of GPLv3 is hardly clear; to the contrary, there's a lot more ambiguity. For instance:

    -it's hard to tell what position the draft takes with regard to embedded code and DRM.

    -the automatic licensing of downstream recipients in Section 10 isn't very clear. What rights are conveyed, and to whom?

    -the draft uses a lot of different language to refer to patent licenses. In Section 11, para 1, for instance, says "each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims in the contribution, to make use, sell, offer for sale, import, and otherwise run, modify, and propagate the contribution." Section 10 says "each time you convey a covered work, the receipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors to run, modify and propagate that work." Section 11, para 3 requires a party relying on a patent license to cause source code "to be so available." Are these licenses supposed to be all the same? Or are there differences?

    -Section 11, para 2 defines "patent license" for the following paragraphs. The definition would seem to include the broad patent pools or licenses that are common in the industry or related to defined standards. If so, it would make it hard for GPLv3 code to include popular standardized technologies that are covered by patents.

    I've heard Eben Moglen speak on several occasions, and he's acknowledged that he's intentionally included ambiguous terms in the license. While those ambiguities may give Moglen and the FSF flexibility to interpret and enforce the license, it creates real problems for software developers that genuinely want to try to understand and apply it. In fact, the point of a written license is to provide the parties with some clarity about what they can and can't do. Deliberate ambiguity undermines this goal -- and it creates a real risk that a court will apply the well-established legal rule that it should construe the ambiguous terms against the person who drafted it.

    In sum, then, I'm concerned that the efforts to tailor the GPLv3 to target the Microsoft/Novell deal have created a lot of uncertainties that will dissuade commercial open source developers from adopting it.

    What do you think?

    ---
    EJN

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Simplicate and Add Lightness
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 04:29 PM EDT
    It's getting too complicated. It needs to be simplified and be more polished. Let's not rush to put out a license that we'll regret later just to meet an arbitrary time line.

    With an ordinary commercial contract or license, you are applying it to one thing at a time. If problems show up, you can just ammend it for the next sale. For the GPLv3, it needs to be right the first time because it is supposed to be applied as is to thousands of programs over many years.

    The way things are now, I get the impression that we'll need a GPLv4 pretty quickly to fix the oversights in GPLv3.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3?
    Authored by: vadim on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 05:04 PM EDT
    Some parts in the draft are really difficult to read and understand, first
    party, second party, third party etc...
    I reminds me description of software algorithms in patent applications. The mind
    melts when you read them.
    Why a securty comminity terminalogy can't be used:
    Allce, Bob, Mallory ... etc.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What use is there to release my code under GPLv3?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 05:36 PM EDT
    Without a Linux kernel under the same license, in what OS can I see my code
    implemented?
    I mean, until now I released my code under GPLv2 or any later version, but I
    think it would be wise to release any more code only under GPLv2 from now on.
    It looks like GPLv3 code will be nice for academic purposes without operational
    implementations. But that's not what I develop code for.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Section 11 paragraph 5
    Authored by: tknarr on Friday, March 30 2007 @ 11:59 PM EDT

    Personally I think they should drop any attempt to target the MS/Novell deal from this paragraph and adopt the same strategy employed in paragraph 4. At it's heart, the problem with the MS/Novell deal isn't that it involves MS, or Novell. It's that it attempts to grant protection from patent infringement charges to only some recipients of the software. Paragraph 4 goes to that point. So in paragraph 5, do the same: deals which grant protection to all recipients of the software are OK, deals with grant it only to recipients who received it through certain channels and not others are verbotten. That would hit the MS/Novell deal dead-on. It might also hit other deals, but I'd argue that if they were affected by that kind of provision they were toxic by definition the same as the MS/Novell deal is. The only difference is that the party with the club may not be waving it. Yet. If they truly never intend to wave it, it'll be a simple matter to amend the deals to comply (could even be done unilaterally, as granting a patent license or covenant not to sue doesn't require the assent of anyone but the patent-holder). If they won't amend so, I'd have to start worrying about what plans they've got that'd require that club be available and that's exactly what we're worried about in the MS/Novell deal.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is a section 7 automatic expiry clause possible?
    Authored by: Reven on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 12:34 AM EDT
    I myself have a couple projects that I release under the GPL. Something that I
    would like to add as a limitation to my license is to have it automatically
    expire when a new version of the GPL is released, with the option that the
    person may then relicense it under the new version of the GPL.

    I was thinking that this could be an allowed limitation in section 7. It would
    be completely voluntary on the part of the developer, so I can't see that it
    would be a hard sell either.

    Just thinking of this possibility with respects to the Novell deal makes for a
    lovely fantasy. It allows me as a developer to not have to worry about a future
    loophole, because if something comes up strong enough to warrant a license
    change, my software is retroactively covered. The day after GPL v4 is released,
    whomever is misusing an unforeseen loophole in GPL v3 is cut off.

    In these days where software is often "patched" to retroactively fix a
    bug, wouldn't it be nice if a license could be too?

    ---
    Ex Turbo Modestum

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A distribution licence might not cut the mustard
    Authored by: RTH on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 12:58 AM EDT
    You might have to think about the fact that if one doesn't have a licence to a
    copyrighted work, one doesn't have permission even to make copies for one's own
    use. It is worth considering NOT granting this right to those who decline the
    licence. Otherwise, consider: Novell develops Suse, but an independent company
    distributes it. How did the other co. get the original copy? Maybe they 'pulled'
    it rather than Novell 'push' it? Any way, the other co. is distributing and has
    done no evil deals. Novell get the same outcome and can continue copying and
    developing.

    The fact that they are now on record saying that this draft is no threat leads
    me to think they have something like this up their sleeve.

    And as for the grandfather clause - pleeeze! Novell knew they were screwing with
    the giftors of the code they are making their business on. Letting them off the
    hook is an open message that the next company that sidelines GPL3 will get off
    in GPL4, and so on. Novell must be punished because they did it willingly and
    with malice aforethought. As for the remark that other 'innocent' distributors
    might have agreements in place already - well, if the clause were written
    properly, so that it prohibited the thing you object to, rather than being a
    description of the MS/Novell deal, then innocent distributors would not fall
    foul of it. And if any one really was in that situation, why not allow specific
    appeals for exemption for existing deals?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    11.5 is not feasible
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 01:46 AM EDT
    If A and B (They do not have to be software companies. Even they could be two
    divisions in a group) want to make mutual patent deal (recurring payment
    intiatively for expense tracking purpose), they have to explicitly exclude GPL
    from such deal, or neither of them in the future can distribute GPLv3 covered
    software, otherwise they will be vulnerable to potential lawsuits. 11.5 brings a
    mess not only to the software industry but to the whole world as well.

    I don't think any big boys like such kind of risky provisions. And, it'll be
    very harmful to the expansion of "Free software". It's almost an
    action of chronic suicide.

    For Novell-Microsoft's case, as long as Novell denies what they paid is for GPL
    (especially, GPLv3) software, as Novell has announced, and don't detail anything
    in such deal, 11.5 is a piece of junk then.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I'd put this more strongly
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 02:20 AM EDT

    executives may sometimes opt to do very well personally, even as their company is kamikazied into a hole in the ground.

    "may sometimes"?

    How about "nearly always"?

    Ethical executives exist, but they're pretty rare.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Compatability, what's in a name?
    Authored by: ralatalo on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 07:15 AM EDT
    Why does the GPL only stipulate compatibility with other licenses which allow
    themselves to be relicensed as GPL?
    Why not list the freedoms sought and allow mixing with code under any license
    which grants those freedoms and also allows the code originally released under
    the GPL to remain under the GPL so long as the individual sections where
    clearly marked as to which license(s) they were under. The resulting code could
    then be covered by two different licenses both of which granted the important
    freedoms. Anyone wanting to further modify the code would clearly see the
    original part of the code which was under the GPL and it would stay as such.
    The other license(s) would all have to also grant the important freedoms but
    could have there own small differences (like name) and this would also allow
    co-mingling with GPL version 2 (well... version 4 and later anyway)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Clause 11 issues
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 07:34 AM EDT
    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license providing freedom to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work to any of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.

    You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License [, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007].

    1)Shouldn't the wording in the first paragraph be more specific about termination. Instead of "is automatically extended", put "is deemed under this license to be automatically extended" to make it clear this is a key requirement of the GPL3 license rather than something which can be interpreted as a mistake or ambigutiy. A court might rule for example that a patent license cannot be extended automatically to all recipients because the patent license is a s eparate contract over which this license has no effect, and the "automatically extended" wording may be viewed as a mistake or an unfiar clause which is thus voidable without voiding the whole GPL3 license.

    2) Shouldn't distribution in any country be limited by patent laws in that country? What happens if Congress passes laws to limit exports to Iran of patented technology which is available under an unrestricted royalty free license acceptable to GPL3. Can Microsoft or someone else use this clause in GPL3 to block the use of programs in the US on the basis that it doesn't comply with the GPL3 requirement that it must be distributable to everyone including individuals in Iran? Of course distributing in Iran won't be a problem because US law doesn't run in Iran, but what is worrying is whether it may be used to block use of the GPL3 program in the US.

    3) I wonder if the wording of the second para of clause 11 is too Microsoft specific? If clause 1 is limited to "parties that are in the business of distributing software", then will this clause be effective in preventing pure patent portfolio companies or Microsoft proxies playing Microsoft's role in schemes like the Novell/Microsoft pact?

    4) Also I wonder whether the let-off-Novell clause is a good idea. OK Novell has made mistakes, and it has to be given a fair chance to comply. However I think it is unreasonable to ask the authors of GPL software to license out their code under GPL3 with such a provision unless thay are able to see what that agreement is so that they can decide for themselves whether to release that code under GPL3 with that exclusion or not, and whether to include the clause or not. The last part should therefore read something like:

    "This paragraph applies unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007 and unless you have made the full and complete details of the agreement public for a period of 1 year prior to the date the program was licensed under GPL3, and reasonable attempts have been made during this time to inform all copyright holders affected by the said agreement."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Would Microsoft's suggested provision in the "Binding contribution agreement" violate GPLv3?
    Authored by: leopardi on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 09:01 AM EDT
    I've posted this previously, but it is worth asking in the context of GPLv3. See my comment 'Microsofts Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org" is unchanged' and the replies. The suggested provision in the "Binding contribution agreement" actually prohibits licensing of any Microsoft "intellectual property". As I have argued before, this includes copyrights in general, and the GPL in particular, as well as patents. As such, this provision contradicts the GPL: it prevents contributors to opensuse.org from taking any GPL software with a Microsoft copyright, modifying it and contributing it to opensuse.org under the GPL. In other words, this provision prohibits sublicensing of Microsoft's GPL software. If this provision were to be written into any contract or license, it would put Microsoft in direct violation of GPLv2. (IMHO, IANAL, etc.)

    Microsoft does ship GPL software.

    See the documentation for "Windows Services for Unix", for example the document Customizing Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Installation. This, in particular, says: "Interix GNU Utilities - The Interix GNU Utilities are covered by the GNU General Public License (GPL)."

    Some questions arising:

    1. Does Microsoft's suggested provision violate GPLv2? Why or why not? Has Eben Moglen already looked at this particular issue in relation to GPLv2? If so, what was his opinion and why haven't we heard it up until now?
    2. Would Microsoft's suggested provision violate GPLv3? Why or why not? How is this different from GPLv2?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My prediction
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT
    ...is that we will have 2 main families of distributions:

    a GPL v2 fork of everything, used by businesses, governments, institutions:
    commercial distributions like Red Hat, Suse, etc

    A GPL v3 fork used by purists (Mom's basement): ie Debian, Slackware.

    I predict the FSF will push out new revs of its tools quickly to place them
    under the new license. This will be followed by a shadow build of all the
    v2-revs.

    Within a year the market acceptance of the GPL3 fork will be about the same as
    that of Debian (ie not relevant)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    There is a cost to Free Software
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 11:06 AM EDT
    Code you write that is internal to your company is yours and you are not
    required to release it back to the community. Typically, if the code is general
    use code, it's beneficial to release it; that way there is a chance someone else
    will maintain it or extend it.

    For core business logic, it may not be beneficial to you to release it. That's
    fine as long as you don't distribute it. Of course you will need to maintain it
    going forward.

    Now the Software as a Service development model is different; these are
    applications that are written with the explicit purpose of them being used
    externally. The developers that are writing this feel that changes to the code
    should be provided back to the community. That's why they are using the Affero
    license.

    Remember just because you use a project doesn't give you the right to pick the
    license. The original project owner, who typically writes the most code has the
    most control over the license for it. So if you don't want to release your
    changes back, choose a different package or write one yourself from scratch.

    The development community is saying No Free Rides here; there is a cost
    involved in Free Software, and that is "Code for Code". This makes
    sense... remember most software is only marginally related to core business
    logic. So there is little cost to the company in releasing it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3?
    Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 11:32 AM EDT
    You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License, [unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007].
    The bolded text worries me. How about arrangement with patent trolls that don't distribute software? Can you work around this clause by setting up an organization that exclusively signs the patent deals and never distribute any software?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I still don't understand why the MS-Novell deal doesn't violate GPL v2
    Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT
    The old GPL 2 says that you can't distribute the work if it is covered by
    patents, and you are unable to give permission to your licencees to redistribute
    themselves under the same terms. It is very clear on that point.

    So we have Microsoft saying "Linux violates our patents. Except SuSE Linux,
    at least for the time being." Oh, why not SuSE? Only because of the
    covenant Novell and Microsoft agreed not to sue each other's customers.

    Novell may say that this is not a cross-licencing deal. Firstly I think this is
    unconvincing sophistry: if you promise not to sue someone over use of your
    protected work, in what manner is that promise different from a licence?
    Secondly, the GPL v2 doesn't say you have to be in possesion of a licence
    anyway. It only says that you must be able to guarantee the freedom of your
    licencee to redistribute. Doesn't matter whether you have a licence or a
    'covenant not to sue'.

    If the law allows sophistry like this to get around the plain language and
    intent of the GPL 2, then THE LAW IS AN ASS and no amount of verbiage in the new
    licence will fix that.

    ---
    It's not the software that's free; it's you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Maybe not say "attack"?
    Authored by: seekamp on Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 03:44 PM EDT
    Admittedly I have not read the entire draft, nor all the FAQs, but as listed earlier in this article, one paragraph in the FAQs starts with the phrase "We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal". I understand this is the FAQs and not necessarily the GPL itself, but I wonder whether the tone is necessary.

    Personally, I fully understand the need to "attack" such agreements. And I don't generally subscribe to "politically correct" speech that cannot possibly offend anyone. At the same time, let's assume there are potential users, be they companies (small or large) or individuals, who are not familiar with the situation vis a vis Microsoft and Novell, or perhaps are ambivalent about such things. Let's assume they have heard (hopefully positive) things about free software and are investigating with the thought of possibly using it. Are they interested in supporting the idea of free software? Perhaps so. Does that necessarily mean that their support means they want to be part of an effort to attack Microsoft and Novell, or an agreement between the two? Perhaps not.

    So my question is, is it necessary to frame things in terms of attacking companies or agreements between companies? Could not the emphasis be placed solely on describing precluding the possibility of patent covenants like the one between Microsoft and Novell (perhaps briefly listing it as example), but emphasizing what you are for and what protections you are trying to extend to all users. So basically, attack yes, but maybe just not describe it that way.

    Obviously very many understand the issues, what is at stake, etc. and have no qualms about discussing going on the attack over these issues. And if you feel that you don't want anyone using software under the license unless they also feel strongly and basically choose sides, then talking of "attacking" is fine. However, if you want to be more inclusive and encourage those who don't want to feel they are getting in the middle of a battle by choosing software under GPL v3 to try such software, a different way of describing things, or "spin" if you will, might help.

    This is not a criticism, just a suggestion. Maybe the meek may not inherit the earth, but if most of them choose free software, think what an impact that would have.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A lexical look at GPLv3d3 vs GPLv2
    Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 01:47 AM EDT
    What if I told you that I had the source code to two different programs, and that the two programs basically did the same thing, but one was twice the size of the other in terms of source code.

    Which one of the two would you think is less buggy?

    I converted both to text files, and then removed the 'how to apply' section from both.

    A wc -lw on the two files reveals that GPLv3d3 is basically twice the size of GPLv2 on both a line and word count basis.

    From a programming perspective, if you told me that these were source files, and that the new one has some enhancements and bug fixes, well, what enhancements and bug fixes?

    If you've doubled the size, there better be some major enhancements.

    I'm not sure there are.

    It sounds more like bloat.

    Then using http://www.textalyser.net/ I looked for other differences, but suprisingly, there was not much. I was epecting the FOG index to go up, but it did not.

    GPLv2:

    Total word count : 1356
    Number of different words : 530
    Complexity factor (Lexical Density) : 39.1%
    Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) : (6-easy 20-hard) 13.6
    Total number of characters : 15423
    Number of characters without spaces : 9022
    Average Syllables per Word : 1.8
    Sentence count : 106
    Average sentence length (words) : 26.13
    Max sentence length (words) : 106

    Gplv3d3:

    Total word count : 2721
    Number of different words : 875
    Complexity factor (Lexical Density) : 32.2%
    Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) : (6-easy 20-hard) 13.5
    Total number of characters : 30425
    Number of characters without spaces : 18352
    Average Syllables per Word : 1.84
    Sentence count : 202
    Average sentence length (words) : 25.68
    Max sentence length (words) : 154

    So basically, we're looking at a doubling in size, without any proven useful additional functionality, with the increased probability of bugs (loopholes).

    ---

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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Explicit copyrights?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 02:57 PM EDT
    I modify a free software application, changes are not marked
    with copyrights. Indeed, I couldn't care less, but I do
    release my fork.

    However, the original author is not pleased and refuses to
    accept copyrights for the changes. Am I obliged to insert
    my copyrights? What happens if I dont'?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    For what are you accountable? Your speech.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 06:00 PM EDT
    A company cannot control what another company does with respect to patents or
    lawsuits. There can be agreements, but agreements can be roundabout and
    obscure.

    In a case like the MS/Novell deal, the only thing that Novell controls for sure
    is what it says about the deal, the statements that it makes to the public.
    Perhaps control of *speech* is the most direct way to exert control. Here is a
    hypothetical license paragraph as an example:

    "If you make the representation that one class of recipients will be
    treated differently than another class of recipients with respect to patent
    rights, (for example, if you say downstream recipients will be treated
    differently than direct recipients), then as a consequence of making such a
    representation you forfeit your permission to distribute the Program at all
    under this license."

    In other words, you can make a deal, but then you must keep it secret, which
    defeats the purpose. If you tell people about the deal, then you can't
    distribute, which also defeats the purpose.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Lingering Questions About Software Patents
    Authored by: tag888 on Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 08:46 PM EDT
    Every time I read about the "threat" of software patents, I'm always
    left with the same kinds of questions......

    QUESTIONS ABOUT SOFTWARE PATENTS
    ================================

    1. FILING THE INFRINGEMENT ACTION

    How would the patent lawsuit filing be structured?

    What legal procedure(s) would the enforcer follow to initiate the litigation?

    What kind(s) of relief could the enforcer legally request from the court?

    Would the suit be against all Linux users or against specific, named user(s)?

    What means can the enforcer lawfully employ to locate victims? How does the
    enforcer legally discover who is running Linux?

    Would we see bulk filing of infringement actions, reminiscent of the RIAA
    lawsuits against P2P users?

    Would remote OS fingerprinting techniques (via the internet) be a lawful means
    of identifying enforcement victims?

    How would the following affect the nature of the case filed by the enforcer and
    its treatment by the courts?
    - victim (a) inside or (b) outside the hostile jurisdiction
    - victim is (a) a private individual, (b) an employee, or (c) a corporation
    (e.g., Red Hat)
    - victim is (a) a Linux developer, (b) a Linux distributor, or (c) Linux
    end-user (or some combination)
    - victim has deep pockets or not

    2. CONSIDERING THE VERDICT

    What standard of proof is required for the enforcer to show that its patent is
    infringed and that the victim infringed it?

    What minimum standards would an enforcer need to meet in order to survive a
    motion by the victim for dismissal, at various stages of the case?

    What legal theories exist upon which the victim could move for dismissal of the
    case?

    At what point geographically/chronologically would the alleged infringement be
    said to occur?

    At what point(s) in the development cycle of the program would the alleged
    infringement be said to occur? Does the infringement occur intrinsically in the
    source code; at compilation time; upon distribution; and/or, at execution time?

    Would private, non-commercial use constitute patent infringement?

    Can the fact that the program is distributed free of charge absolve its
    distributor(s) of some or all patent liabilities?

    Is there a distinction between good-faith, unintentional patent infringement vs.
    willful infringement?

    Is there such a thing as contributory patent infringement?

    At what point in the proceeding does the enforcer start discovery against the
    victim?

    Does the court consider practical effectiveness of enforcibility when forming
    its decision?


    What about public good, national security, and global competitiveness
    considerations?

    How specifically does the protected right of free speech interact with patent
    law in the matter of publishing software source code? Can there exist forms of
    expression which are both protected free speech and patent-infringing material
    at the same time? What form(s) of public commentary are legal when speaking on
    topics that may be covered by patent(s)? What test is used to determine whether
    something is protected free speech or is illegal, infringing material? Must
    speech that is ruled infringing be retracted?

    3. GUILTY VERDICT DECLARED

    In the event of a "guilty" verdict, how widespread is the resulting
    jurisdiction ? (i.e., statewide, judicial circuitwide, nationwide, worldwide,
    etc.)

    Would a finding against one user effectively be a judgement against all?

    What form would the guilty verdict be in (e.g., injunction against use of Linux;
    requirement of royalty payment; etc).

    Would all extant binary versions of the infringing software have to be
    destroyed?

    Would all extant source versions of the infringing software have to be
    destroyed?

    Would all www hyperlinks to versions of the infringing software have to be
    destroyed? (remember 2600.com?)

    What about archived/mirrored/offline versions of the above?

    Would all sales and marketing of the affected software have to be halted
    immediately?

    What would happen to manufacturers, distributors, and owners of hardware devices
    that run on infringing versions of embedded Linux ?

    How would victim(s) certify compliance with verdict and/or enforcement letters?

    Can the verdict be sealed?

    4. OTHER QUESTIONS

    Imaginary scenario... A court finds some Linux program infringes a patent.
    However the developer of that program lives outside the hostile jurisdiction,
    refuses to remove the offending "infringing" code, and wishes to
    continue to distribute the program to the remainder of the free world. Would
    this be a violation of GPL2 section 7?

    What are the community's options in response to a guilty verdict? (E.g., fork,
    remove infringing code, invalidate the patent, ignore the verdict...)

    Is there a patent-law difference if a software function is distributed as a
    useless-by-itself patch as opposed to a complete package?

    Is it theoretically possible to create a literary or artistic work that
    infringes a patent?

    Does the "fair use" doctrine apply in software patents, for example is
    it legal to distribute an algorithm in parody or criticism of a patented
    software?

    What if Steve Ballmer, referring to companies with "undisclosed balance
    sheet liabilities", was thinking specifically of Google (an admitted Linux
    user)? Would MS like to get discovery on Google?

    With specificity (but without preparing the enforcer's case for them), what
    steps can the community take in advance to prepare for trouble? What are all
    the potential trouble scenarios?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    propagate vs. modify
    Authored by: swmcd on Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 10:57 PM EDT
    Section 0 paragraph 6 excludes private modification from the
    definition of "propagate". This seems to create an anomaly: making a
    verbatim copy is propagation, but if I make a trivial change to the
    work (say, copy all but one byte), then I have a modification, and it
    escapes from the definition of "propagate".

    I've grep'd the text of the license, and I can't find any place where
    this would make a difference, but I'm curious why it was done.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Effective Technological Measures
    Authored by: swmcd on Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 11:16 PM EDT
    I don't understand how to construct or apply section 3 paragraph 1.

    Suppose I take a covered work and use it to build a DRM system.

    Do we observe that the covered work is part of my DRM system, and conclude
    therefore that my DRM system is not an Effective Technological Measure (ETM)?

    Do we observe that my DRM system is an ETM, and conclude therefore that the
    covered work is not part of my DRM system?

    And who is doing the deeming? The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are
    criminal statutes. Is a U.S. attorney, or a federal judge (like the one who
    issued the injunction restraining 2600 from publishing the DeCSS source)
    supposed to be bound by this paragraph?

    Is the purpose of this paragraph simply to prevent the DMCA from reaching the
    original covered work?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    void where prohibited
    Authored by: swmcd on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 12:15 AM EDT
    I don't understand how to construct this sentence in section 8, paragraph 1
    Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void.
    When someone says "offer void where prohibited", that means that their own offer is automatically nullified in places where it would otherwise be prohibited. It allows them to make the offer where it is allowed, and not make it where it is not allowed.

    But in the GPLv3 Draft 3, it is the licensee who is propagating, and the licensor who is voiding. What does that mean? Can you give an example of situation where the outcome would be different if this sentence were omitted from the GPL?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    propagate by procuring conveyance of
    Authored by: swmcd on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 12:43 AM EDT
    It isn't quite obvious to me that Microsoft has "propagate[d] by procuring
    conveyance of" Linux in the Microsoft/Novell deal. My understanding of the
    deal is that Novell distributes Linux and Microsoft agrees not to assert its
    patents against Novell's customers. How exactly does this constitute an act by
    Microsoft of procuring conveyance?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Do You Have Questions You'd Like to Ask FSF About GPLv3?
    Authored by: Illiander on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 04:05 AM EDT
    would re-wording the "Installation Information" section to apply to
    all users (ie. removing the "User Product" definition) be a additional
    permission, or an additional restriction?

    ---
    All companies are ammoral.
    They only do good deeds to make you forget the last time they did bad ones.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Questions, Comments, & Timelines...and clarity.
    Authored by: tce on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 04:13 AM EDT
    Reading though about an hours worth of comments about compatibility (Apache),
    understandability (for Developers, vs v2), and a preference for language about
    goals vs language about specific annoyances (microvellian annoiances), leads me
    to two questions:

    1] Should this comment period lead to serious work for the v3 team, is the self
    imposed deadline flexible? The implied point of view is that real improvements
    will benefit 1000s for years, while hitting the date might be more of a
    pointy-haired-boss thing...

    2] Our justice system _has_ been based on accepting that a few false-negatives
    (crooks) will go free to protect citizens from government false-positives (good
    guys going to jail).

    Should the authors of GPLv3 reconsider the balance between goal of world wide
    acceptance of the GPL vs dealing with specific risks, if dealing with the risk
    either complicates the GPL and creates legal interpretation risks or complicates
    the GPL and makes developer-readability risks and barriers to use?

    (Don't get me wrong, the MS-N deal is dead wrong, but still, if the uptake of
    GPLv3 is lessoned due to accessablity and clarity then MS-N has a broader
    victory of another sort.

    --tom

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What's the point?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 11:11 AM EDT
    I just read the story "GPLv3 in embedded devices" which describes how to tivoize GPLv3 software. Just put it into read-only memory. Wasn't it this kind of thing that had the v3 camp up in arms? Wasn't it this type of thing that there were out to stop? After all the trouble, arguments, and finger pointing the new version of the gpl does nothing but add confusion and red tape. It seems the only reason for the existence of the GPLv3 is to stop the MS/Novell deal, which is kind of pathetic. Is there some other point of it?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Based on what Linus has said...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 01:36 PM EDT
    Based on what Linus has said... Alot has been done by the groups working on
    GPLv3 to make it a better license.

    Question: Would Two GPLv3 licenses make senst? A GPLv3b (basic) license (for
    folks that agree with Linus) and and also have an optional GPLv3p (plus) license
    add some stuff that maybe Linus (and others) do not want?

    Then everyone could choose from the basic or the plus license depending on the
    project?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I wish the baseless Novell bashing would stop
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT
    Why baseless? and why everyone here is just FUDding it

    Has anyone here actually seen or read the agreement between Microsoft and
    Novell?

    No...

    Is anyone here a party to the agreement and actually knows what Novell's plans
    are?

    Again, No.

    Is anyone here psychic and can read their minds?

    Again, No.

    Does anyone here actually have solid evidence or proof for the continuous
    bashing of Novell?

    Yet again, No.

    So you're all bashing Novell, for something you know nothing about, based on
    comments from people who don't actually know what they're talking about and
    couldn't because they haven't actually read the agreement and aren't a party to
    the contract.

    Does that about sum it up? Isn't that called "FUD" ? Yep.

    Why not give them the benefit of the doubt, Novell is a major Linux and OSS
    supporter. In fact, without Novell, Linux might not exist at all. Novell
    designed some of the standards we use today, and continue to do good things.

    Is the reason you're bashing Novell because the agreement only protects their
    own customers and partners and there is a veiled threat from Microsoft against
    others that Novell can't protect? yes?

    Novell can't protect everyone, no one can protect anyone from patent threats.
    But if you can protect SOME people, don't you think it's better than protecting
    NONE ?

    Putting it another way;

    isn't a stop-gap until software patents can be banished better than nothing?

    How about supporting Novell until if/when we see some real facts and real
    evidence?

    Or is that too difficult for simpletons that jump on the bashing bandwagon
    immediately?

    I say for shame!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    USE by Governments internal use or website use
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 07:32 PM EDT
    My question is two fold.

    1St) If say a gov't like canada were to adopt the linux kernal as the basis for
    its own operating system and then develop it for its own internal uses, do they
    then have to "give the modifications back". The reason i ask this is
    so i may clearify it to anyone i may or may not talk to about that end of the
    gpl.

    2nd) Using the above as a basis, now move it to say webhosting and third party
    gpled applications where gov't services and websites reside. In interest of
    security as i would also say for hospitals are they also required to show any
    modifications to source code when it is for a security or gov't agency?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is the GPLv3 truly international?
    Authored by: Sesostris III on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 03:40 AM EDT
    What considerations have been given by the FSF regarding international and
    pan-global law?

    I ask because things like the sections on patents, and references to things like
    the "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act" (whatever that is) seem very US
    specific.

    Could the addition of these sections - although tightening the GPLv3 in the US,
    acxtually weaken it (as unenforceabe) in the place most of us reside, i.e.
    "abroad"!?

    Sesostris III

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How can any large complex project move to gpl v3?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 07:29 AM EDT
    Given the nature of open source projects, and the large number of contributors
    to most of them, how can any large project move from gpl v2 to gpl v3?

    Many have stated over and over that even if the Linux kernel developers wanted
    to move to gpl v2, they would have a hard time doing so because there are so
    many contributors that have copyrighted code in Linux, and certainly a
    significant percentage of them are either unreachable (no forwarding address, or
    dead), or may have some reason that they wouldn't want their code to go to gpl
    v3, so that a very large chunk of the project would have to be scrapped and
    rewritten, which could take years to accomplish, as the rewrites couldn't be
    copies.

    Doesn't the same situation exist for almost every large gpl v2 project in
    existance? How can any gpl v2 project make claims that they are just going to
    convert to gpl v3 at the flick of a switch?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How can this be??
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 12:56 PM EDT
    "This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's
    customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes
    under GPLv3."

    I don't see how anything in the GPL V3 can be binding to Microsoft. I.E. It
    will not prevent Microsoft from bring a law suit against users of Novell's
    freely downloadable software.

    Am I missing something?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Tivoization question
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:53 AM EDT
    If I understand the phones/medical devices situation correctly, it's possible to
    avoid making such devices unmodifiable by putting the unmodifiable code in ROM
    rather than using tivoization to ensure that it's unmodified. But wouldn't
    making code unmodifiable this way have all the same disadvantages to the user of
    making it unmodifiable by tivoization? What does the user gain by having things
    unmodifiable in one way rather than in another?

    (I understand the argument that only a small portion needs to be put into ROM,
    with everything else left modifiable, but it's also possible for just a small
    portion to be tivoized, so that doesn't seem to be a benefit of using ROM.)

    --Ken Arromdee

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell shifts position?
    Authored by: stites on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:31 PM EDT

    Bruce Lowery of Novell made the following comment in an article on LinuxPlanet: < /p>

    "But this is just a draft for public comment, and it's still in motion. If there is something in the final agreement which requires us to work with Microsoft around changing our agreement with Microsoft, we'll address that with Microsoft,"

    AFAIK this is the first time Novell has publicly considered changing the Microsoft-Novell agreement. It leaves open the question of whether Novell will conform to the intent of GPL3 or simply try to find new loopholes in GPL3.

    --------------
    Steve Stites

    [ 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 0.09 seconds