×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Draft of GPL Version 3 Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the forward-progress dept.

GNU is Not Unix 575

njan writes "The first draft of version three of the GNU General Public License was released to the public this afternoon. Major improvements touted in version three include changes designed to mitigate the damage posed by new threats to free software such as software patents. One individual stated about the release: 'It is changes in law, not computer technology, that pose the principal challenges to the free software community. Chief among these changes has been the unwise and ill-considered application of patent law to software. Software patents threaten every free software project, just as they threaten proprietary software and custom software. Any program can be destroyed or crippled by a software patent belonging to someone who has no other connection to the program.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

575 comments

Other issues (5, Informative)

Renegade Lisp (315687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485719)

The slashdot summary does not quite get the proportions right. Yes, the v3 draft does refine how the GPL deals with patents, but that is only one of many issues in this draft. (I've compiled the list below from cursory reading of the new license and the rationale that accompanies it, before it was slashdotted.)
  • There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure". Thus it would always be possible for other programs to get at the same data without falling under the DMCA.
  • When it comes to patents, the draft is actually not very aggressive about them. There is no general patent retaliation clause as in some other licenses, because the FSF believes that disallowing an offender to use any free software would not be too much of a deterrent for some.
  • Compatibility between the new GPL and other free software licenses will generally be better.
  • The idea of what constitutes source code and object code is refined. This, I think, is mostly intended to deal with the case when software is used over the web, rather than downloaded and installed.

Re:Other issues (5, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485835)

There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure".

I'd be curious to see what an objective lawyer has to say about the enforceability of that clause. Being an "effective technological protection measure" seems like a matter that can't be waived, any more than my signing a stipulation that I wasn't born in August affects my birthday.

Re:Other issues (4, Interesting)

jmv (93421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486114)

I think I understand what they're trying to do with this. Without the clause, I could (theoretically) take a GPL program, add "pseudo-DRM" to it and then sue whoever removes that DRM from the (GPL) code using the DMCA. With the clause, I'm "forced" (if I want to distribute the program) to state that my stuff isn't an "effective technological protection measure" (which I assume is the phrasing of the DMCA). Would be much harder to defend in a court "Yes, I know we say in the license that it's not an effective technological protection measure, but we for the purpose of this lawsuit, we would like to change our mind...". Anyway, I'm not sure how strong a protection it offers, but I can't see that really hurting anyone.

Re:Other issues (5, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486165)

Not quite. What they want to do is make it legal to try and decypt content GPLed code protects. By stating they are not an effective protection method, they are not covered by the DMCA. Therefor, you can try and remove the encryption from any content that the program produced (possibly any content it can read?). As for legality, I'd think its fairly strong- whoever releases it under the GPL license is voluntarily agreeing to this, and thus waiving the rights to sue under the DMCA (remember, breaking the DMCA is not a criminal act, but a civil tort).

Re:Other issues (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486150)

No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.
It doesn't say that you can't make a DRM protection measure out of the GPL'd code. What it says is that if you redistribute the GPL'd code, then you agree not to use it as such a measure, because you agree to not try to prevent people accessing the data by other means. If you don't agree, that's fine, but then you have no right to redistribute the GPL'd code.

Re:Other issues (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485972)

When it comes to patents, the draft is actually not very aggressive about them. There is no general patent retaliation clause as in some other licenses, because the FSF believes that disallowing an offender to use any free software would not be too much of a deterrent for some.

I'm glad they stepped off this one. The stuff I was reading at one time seemed quite a bit draconian about it and, to put it mildly, quite hypocritical when they say "free/open/libre" software but then "you can't use it".

Re:Other issues (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485981)

There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure". Thus it would always be possible for other programs to get at the same data without falling under the DMCA.

I read that a little differently. Because the license, picked by the original copyright holder, categorically states that it is not a technological protection measure, it can't be used in software that has the protections of the DMCA. This isn't so interesting.

However, when you remember that derivative works are similarly bound, you realise that the end effect is that any organisation who wishes to attack reverse-engineers with the DMCA is forbidden from building their copy protection on top of any GPL 3 software.

I don't think this is about opening things up, I think this is about giving companies an ultimatum - either give up on abusing the DMCA, or you can't have any of our source code.

Re:Other issues (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485996)

On the issue of distribution, am I the only one bothered by the vagueness of this line:

The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Based on the source code of the program? Does inserting XML markup constitute a work based on the program, then? Because those tags were part of the program source code? This is really, really vague in a legally scary way.

I'm also a little bothered by the language that anything with a user interface must have an about box with copyright notice. What if the original didn't? Shouldn't it say that this information must be preserved, rather than saying that it must contain one? It's also a little troubling to think about how this could affect web services, since user interface isn't defined in a way so as to exclude it. This still doesn't explicitly clear up that issue.

Re:Other issues (1)

Erioll (229536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486124)

On the issue of distribution, am I the only one bothered by the vagueness of this line:

The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Based on the source code of the program? Does inserting XML markup constitute a work based on the program, then? Because those tags were part of the program source code? This is really, really vague in a legally scary way.

I would guess that this is for things like compilers, documentation, etc, rather than a more-strict clause. For example if it said "No output from this program is covered by this licence", then somebody could literally run the source code from some program that can "cat" itself that's under GNU3 and say "well, it's cleaned of a licence now!" Stupid, but hey, you never know what somebody might try and claim.

So I think it has to do with programs that would output their own, or other people's code that's covered, basically by saying it doesn't "strip" it of any licences it already has. Though like I said, that's a guess.

Re:Other issues (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486172)

Compatibility between the new GPL and other free software licenses will generally be better.

Now that's what I like to hear. Specifically: is the CPL now compatible? We've been waiting for SWT/Qt for YEARS now and the licence incompatibility is the only excuse the Eclipse team are offering.

I'll stick with the MIT license. (4, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485722)

I think I will continue to stick with the MIT license. It has plain, easy to comprehend terms. It's concise.

I appreciate the effort the FSF is making, but things may be getting out of hand. I know of many developers who feel the same as I do. They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities. Thankfully, licenses like the BSD license and the MIT license work wonderfully well for us.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485793)

Yup, it is so really enjoyable to get your code stolen and put in Windows without ever knowing about it.

It should be renamed: "Right to F**k Me in the Ass" License.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (2, Insightful)

ibullard (312377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485894)

It's not stealing when you give it away. Some people don't mind giving their work away and the GPL isn't applicable for ALL development.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485896)

I code can be stolen that way, then p2p:ing mp3 is theft as well.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486151)

Who cares? If your intention is *really* altruistic as "Open Source" claims to be (and not a hypocrit), then you won't care who uses it. Your original code is still available to anyone who wants to use it.

In other words, you want it to be "Open" but not "Open" to all. BSD is the true "Open Source" license. GPL and some of the others have too much politics and emotion tied up in them (as well as fair doses of hypocrisy). Software isn't a religion and shouldn't be made into one. If you've ever said "look at the problems religion causes" then I can't see how in the world you'd take the time to make OSS and such into a religion.

It should be renamed: "Right to F**k Me in the Ass" License.

Name one way where giving your code away so that others can see it can turn around and "f**k you in the ass". Even if someone did do what you propose, how does that invalidate your BSD licensed code that you put out? It doesn't erase it from history. It doesn't prevent anyone else from using it or modifying it. You simply have some emotional reasons for not wanting someone to use your code even though you want some others to use your code. Drop the emotion and you're life will be higher quality.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (5, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485860)

Some people don't want their code to be used in any situation. They want to guarantee that anyone trying to profit off their code will basically have to contribute in one way or another - the code can't just be copied and closed.

Personally I use both GPL and BSD for different projects, but saying "the GPL is too complex and that's why people should use BSD/MIT" really ignores the reason why many people use the GPL in the first place. I agree that we could use a simpler version of the GPL - but BSD isn't it.

I'll stick with the "closing bits" argument. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486143)

"Some people don't want their code to be used in any situation. They want to guarantee that anyone trying to profit off their code will basically have to contribute in one way or another - the code can't just be copied and closed."

You mean like pirates are copying and closing music? Oh right, you can't close ideas (hence the software patents argument), and you can't close bits (hence all the DRM jokes). Funny though when it comes to the GPL vs BSD, suddenly all this "closing" is achievable. Now if you'll excuse me, I have my eye on a certain CVS, I'm going to green marker.

"Personally I use both GPL and BSD for different projects, but saying "the GPL is too complex and that's why people should use BSD/MIT" really ignores the reason why many people use the GPL in the first place."

GPL v3.2, Codename:"Bah Humbug"
"The tighter you close your fist, the more that will escape."

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485898)

You might be right, if you develop a small application or small library. Imagine if Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, GCC, or GNU stuff would be distributed under MIT or BSD. Then these projects could be easily killed of. Some company like (we know who) would easily take all the codes, incorporate all the features in their products, add a few of their own stuff, make it proprietary, and that's it. You wouldn't be able to compete with them. With GPL you force them either share their code or write everything from scratch.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (1)

winwar (114053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485933)

"I think I will continue to stick with the MIT license. It has plain, easy to comprehend terms. It's concise."

Concise is pretty easy when the license is essentially anything goes with attribution. I suspect the new GPL isn't really any different in philosophy than the previous ones. It just takes more words to explain in legal terms.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486026)

"They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities. "

And thats why they should use the GPL- to make sure it *remains* free, and that changes and additions to it remain free. BSD and MIT may be concise, but it doesn't make this promise. If you're going with them, you may as well just forget the license and go public domain.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (1)

compass46 (259596) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486201)

And thats why they should use the GPL- to make sure it *remains* free

If I write something and BSD license it and someone comes along, extends it, and relicenses it under a non-free license... My code is still free. I still have my code. It didn't go anywhere. It didn't disappear off computer. The only difference is I don't have the extensions that the second person made. So what? Some people really don't care what others do with their code. Hence, they use a BSD or MIT style license.

Lastly, BSD or MIT != Public Domain.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license. (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486227)

They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities.

Well, choosing to ignore the complexities of the legal system doesn't guarantee they ignore you. For example the MIT license has no disclaimer of warranty. Nor does it require the licensee to waive any potential claim of damages. In theory, somebody could take your software, modify it in a way that introduces bugs, then disappear, leaving downstream licensees with your name as the only starting point for a lawsuit.

It doesn't matter that it's not your fault. Unless you're like MIT with a substantial legal staff to scare them off, it'll be too bad for you. The BSD license would be a much better choice.

Like software, licenses should be as simple as they need to be to accomplish what you need them to do, but no simpler.

The MIT license ensures you get credit. Period.

The BSD license ensures you get credit, and that nobody claims that you endorse their derivative products, and that everybody uses the software on the condition of releasing you from legal responsibility for damages.

GPL ensures you get credit, that people release you from legal responsibility for damages, and that every downstream recipient gets as many rights as you granted your immediate licensees.

It's too bad that you have to understand any kind of legaleese to be a programmer, but that's life. Licenses are just the start of it. You have to understand a bit about copyrights, patents and trademarks too. If you work with source material that is not public domain, you probably need to have some understanding of contracts. We're not talking law school level stuff, but at least an informed layman's understanding.

If you don't like this, sticking your head in the sand is not a viable solution.

Patents (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485726)

I have patented the contents of the article. No one may read it without paying me first.

Yeah (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485728)

Right on the first draft of the GPL v3.

FULL TEXT (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485731)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Discussion Draft 1 of Version 3, 16 Jan 2006

THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.

Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. We,
the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for
most of our software; it applies also to any other program whose
authors commit to using it. (Some Free Software Foundation software
is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You
can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make requirements that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1)
assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License which
gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

For the developers' and author's protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is
modified by someone else and passed on, the GPL ensures that recipients
are told that what they have is not the original, so that any problems
introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
reputations.

Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users
to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally
incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users'
freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will
neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions
from which escape is forbidden.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL makes it clear that any patent must
be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. Definitions.

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

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

1. Source Code.

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

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

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

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

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

2. Basic Permissions.

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

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

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

3. Digital Restrictions Management.

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

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

4.[1] Verbatim Copying.

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

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

5.[2] Distributing Modified Source Versions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.[3] Non-Source Distribution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. License Compatibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.[4] Termination.

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

9.[5] Not a Contract.

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

10.[6] Automatic Licensing of Downstream Users.

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

11. Licensing of Patents.

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

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

12.[7] Liberty or Death for the Program.

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

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

[13.[8] Geographical Limitations.

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

14.[9] Revised Versions of this License.

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

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

15.[10] Requesting Exceptions.

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

NO WARRANTY

16.[11] There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by
applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright
holders and/or other parties provide the Program "as is" without warranty
of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to,
the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the Program
is with you. Should the Program prove defective, you assume the cost of
all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

17.[12] In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
redistribute the Program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
out of the use or inability to use the Program (including but not limited
to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
you or third parties or a failure of the Program to operate with any other
programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
possibility of such damages.

18. Unless specifically stated, the Program has not been tested for use
in safety critical systems.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

Copyright (C)

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; for a GUI interface,
you would use an "About box" instead.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

, 1 April 1989
Rich R. Thanus, Peripheral Visionary

For more information on how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses [gnu.org].

The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License.

Re:FULL TEXT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485750)

Too damned long.

My personal rule: any license agreement that takes up more than 2 printed pages is hiding something.

Re:FULL TEXT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485834)

what? in case the fsf get /.ed?

it's difficult to read. (2, Insightful)

skynare (777361) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485738)

why is it so difficult to read?

Re:it's difficult to read. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485787)

why is it so difficult to read?

I don't know but I see that you also find it difficult to start sentences with a capital letter. That's our first clue.

Re:it's difficult to read. (1, Troll)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485815)

why is it so difficult to read?

Because it's written by lawyers for lawyers, not for programmers. Gotta love the OpenBSD license. [openbsd.org] Excluding the warranty disclaimer and copyright notice, here's the entire text:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."

I like my licenses without built-in ideologies.
 

Re:it's difficult to read. (1, Troll)

winwar (114053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485983)

"I like my licenses without built-in ideologies."

Do you seriously think the OpenBSD license doesn't have a ideology? Of course it does. It is just one you accept.

For instance, what is with this annoying requirement to give attribution? This idea that anyone can use it? That sounds like socialism! :)

Every license has an ideology. There's a reason there are so many of them.....

Re:it's difficult to read. (-1, Troll)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486062)

By now you're redefining "ideologism" as "opinion" but there's a reason why they're not synonyms. "I think I might give some money to this beggar" is an opinion. "Let's kill the bloody people who have the nerve to oh gosh - actually WORK - and steal all their money and waste it on lowlife" is an ideology. The OpenBSD license is a bit like the first statement. GNU v3 is more like the second...

Re:it's difficult to read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486222)

> For instance, what is with this annoying requirement to give attribution?

You mean the "above copyright notice"? Um, that's what this is about.

Did you actually *read* the linked license?

Because it's a legal document. (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485870)

The same reason that code is hard to read by non-programmers, or medical papers are hard to read by people without medical training. The law, like any field, needs precise language to communicate. Many words have special legal meanings that are subtly different from common speech (or not so subtle if language has diverged over time). This is necisarry for the same reason that you can't use plain english to write code - plain english leaves to much open for interpretation. When you write legal documents, you want the judge interpreting your document, should it ever go to court, to read it the way you intended it to be read. The best way to do this is to use the accepted legal terminology.

How much of this... (3, Insightful)

krewemaynard (665044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485757)

...will hold up legally, and how much of it is just hot air and rants?

"DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden." Sounds good and noble, but will it work?

Re:How much of this... (2, Interesting)

Renegade Lisp (315687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485876)

I like the anti-DRM idea very much. From the draft:

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

To me, that sounds like a breathtakingly simple way to undermine the whole purpose of the DMCA and DRM, simply by saying: Software under this license can never be a protection device that people are not allowed to circumvent. Almost as simple and elegant as the idea of copyleft itself. I'm very impressed.

Re:How much of this... (2, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486218)

To me, that sounds like a breathtakingly simple way to undermine the whole purpose of the DMCA and DRM, simply by saying: Software under this license can never be a protection device that people are not allowed to circumvent. Almost as simple and elegant as the idea of copyleft itself. I'm very impressed.

I'm not. That would mean that any cryptographic software could never be GPL licensed. You won't have a Free implementation of the protocol used for you to connect securely to your bank, since it is illegal in many places to intercept and decrypt such privileged communications.

TiVo (2, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485887)

Well, it'll stop those fsckers at TiVo from using Linux in hardware devices that are locked down so you can't read the data or modify the software without serious hardware hacking.

Re:TiVo (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486061)

No, TIvo could still require serious hacking. First off, if the code is in user space, it isn't necessarily GPLed. Second, even if its in kernal space, it doesn't require it to be easy- just for it to be legal.

Re:TiVo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486156)

No, it doesn't say TiVo has to make it easy to hack, it merely says that they have to allow you to hack (and cannot thereby sue you under the DMCA et al).

Re:TiVo (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486216)

Assuming Linus undertakes the gargantuan effort to relicense Linux under the GPLv3, that is. And even then, as long as they comply with v2, nothing can revoke their license to use, modify, or distribute the current code base.

That's the preamble (2, Informative)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485982)

*NOT* terms and conditions. This is the style of GNU licenses - preamble describing intent, but not legally binding, then the legally-binding terms .

mod 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485759)

transfer, NeTscape your own beer ha7e their moments live and a job to

Parent to be modded, WHAT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485765)

Do not mod this parent as informative, for he is not in his right mind in order to be modded informative. If you mod informative now, the world's future may be at stake, or better yet, at steak. Heh. That brings me to the topic of meat. Did you know that steak is not a healthful food? Unless you are eating deer or bison steak. Be careful--Buffalo, Colorado is more dangerous than Boulder, where boulders can fall. Slashdot. This is your. HOME!

The slippery slope begins... (1, Troll)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485767)

So "freedom for users" has now been redefined to "freedom for users, except for one group of users that we don't like". I'm curious to see who the second group is going to be...

It began a long time ago. (1)

Some Random Username (873177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485918)

"Freedom for users" was already redefined to mean "freedom for users, except for ones we don't like". You were just ok with who they didn't like before (people using non-GPL licenses). They are simply extending the scope of who they don't like.

Re:The slippery slope begins... (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486037)

No, this draft doesn't limit use in any way. The restrictions are when you want to distribute copies or use the software in derivative works. I quote from the draft:

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program.

Re:The slippery slope begins... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486191)

Section 7e:
They may impose software patent retaliation, which means permission for use of your added parts terminates or may be terminated, wholly or partially, under stated conditions, for users closely related to any party that has filed a software patent lawsuit (i.e., a lawsuit alleging that some software infringes a patent).
As I understand that, it is now consistent with the GPL to add a clause to the license, even to derivatives of code licensed under the base GPL, barring individuals from using software if they're pursuing a completely unrelated patent lawsuit. Am I missing something?

Argh, bad text layout... (2, Funny)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485778)

Gah... why couldn't there be a web page that didn't have BR tags at the 80-character mark every time. This is like reading e-mail in the 90s! (Actually this looks like a plone-based site so it's probably serving up auto-generated *ml from a text file... which is no excuse, really. If vim can fix up stuff like that then plone could too.)

Re:Argh, bad text layout... (2, Insightful)

Harik (4023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485886)

Because it's designed to be read in a text terminal, with source code
which is also generally (gasp) 80 columns.

I know some of you new Eclipse/Visual Studio DOT NET guys love 30000
character lines, and don't get me started on perl, but for the projects
I work on having long lines is a drawback. And has email REALLY improved
since the mid 90s? I force HTML to downconvert to text and strip all the
bullshit markup before it hits my inbox. No blinky pictures, no flash
graphics, no webbugs, no <FONT SIZE +5000><FONT COLOR=BLOOD RED>
<BOLD><UNDERLINE><ITALIC><BLINK><MARQUEE> tags.

Those of us with functioning braincells and an attention span greater then
a gnat miss the email of the 90s.

Re:Argh, bad text layout... (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485987)

And has email REALLY improved since the mid 90s?

What do you mean mid-90s? Email was just fine in the mid-80s. I still use Berkeley mailx almost all the time. The main exception is when I have to send an attachment. I don't even like those new-fangled things like Pine and MH, much-less webmail. If only somebody would update mailx to handle attachments...

Re:Argh, bad text layout... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486093)

Because it's designed to be read in a text terminal, with source code which is also generally (gasp) 80 columns.

So? This is the year 2006, such a thing as "word wrap" has been invented. If you strip out all the <br> elements, it would still display just fine in a text terminal, and would look a lot better in non-text terminals. In typical displays, that page displays a line and a half before an extremely unnatural line break in the middle of the line, then another line and a half, and so on. It makes it very frustrating to read.

Re:Argh, bad text layout... (1)

Hosiah (849792) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486198)

See, I keep my tabs set to something close to 80 characters as well, because I'm a CSS freak and I'm writing to shoot down that narrow floating box in the center with sidebars all 'round.

Cut the "any later version" option (3, Insightful)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485783)

What keeps me from using the GPL is the "any later version" option. How do I know that GPL version 17 wont give every user of my software a right to come by my house for a free lunch? Or a car. You know, unless most significant software, everything in this world isn't free as in lunch. That holds for example for most lunches.

Re:Cut the "any later version" option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485869)

You can use any later version or just the current version, at your choice. The Linux kernel, for example, chooses to only use the current version (and not the later).

Re:Cut the "any later version" option (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485937)

You can use any later version or just the current version, at your choice. The Linux kernel, for example, chooses to only use the current version (and not the later).

Perhaps you are right. The licence says this, which I think is a bit vague:

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

Re:Cut the "any later version" option (4, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485903)

The phrase "or any later version" is not part of the GPL. Rather it is part of the statement in which you specify that the GPL is the license that you are using. The FSF recommends including this phrase but it isn't required by them or by the GPL. You are perfectly free to specify a particular version of the GPL if you wish to.

Re:Cut the "any later version" option (1)

arose (644256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485935)

It's not part of the GPL, you can cut it yourself and be fully compatible with the choosen version.

Re:Cut the "any later version" option (1)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486012)

What other posters said is true, and you can confirm it from the source. From the GNU General Public License [gnu.org]:

"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

So the solution is to SPECIFY A VERSION NUMBER. i.e. you would write:

"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (version 2 exclusively) as published by the Free Software Foundation."

From this... (2, Interesting)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485838)

From the last paragraph section 1: As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface, the implementation of which requires no patent license not already generally available for software under this License.

I'm reading this as (bold area): if I compile my code with GCC and link with a GNU library, my code will not fall under the GNU license unlese I sat it does.

Re:From this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485941)

From the last paragraph section 1: As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface, the implementation of which requires no patent license not already generally available for software under this License.

I'm reading this as (bold area): if I compile my code with GCC and link with a GNU library, my code will not fall under the GNU license unlese I sat it does.

Actually It says pretty much that, except fot the library part.

Nope. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486013)

It means that you don't have to release Visual Studio, MFC, and the .Net runtime under the GPL, if you distribute a GPL application that requires those things to run. Unless your code is a compiler or object code intepretor, I don't see why you would think it is excluded.

Re:From this... (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486084)

As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not include a particular subunit if ... the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it ...
I read it differently than you did. Assuming (without reading the rest of the new GPL yet) that "Complete Corresponding Source Code" refers to the thing you have to distribute along with a binary copy to comply with the GPL, then what this says to me is that you don't have to include pieces of the compiler just because your program uses them. For instance, if you #include , you don't have to put stdio.h into the tarball of your sources when you distribute them.

I think that this passage alone could have been written so much better as to put the entire document into suspicion.

Re:From this... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486131)

No, it means that if a library you use comes as standard with either the OS or the compiler, you don't have to provide source for that library. Current versions of the GPL include similar clauses.

great; now GPL software is prohibited on Windows! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485908)

"The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form ... includes ... any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work"

So unless you can distribute the source code to Microsoft's DLLs you can't distribute binaries for GPL v3-licensed software running on Windows. Yeah, you can still distribute just the GPL v3-licensed source but realistically if users have to compile an app themselves the number of users will drop off dramatically.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Re:great; now GPL software is prohibited on Window (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486195)

Did you read the rest of the license, or just stop halfway through? There's an exception for libraries that come as standard with the OS or development environment. What you say is not true at all.

Re:great; now GPL software is prohibited on Window (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486203)

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

THis is the clause that avoids that problem, specificly subclause a. As major essential components of the OS, they do not have to include code (unless the work you are distributing is an OS, such as the Linux kernel).

Incomprehensible (4, Insightful)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485910)

The new GPL is, well, "wordy", bit not all that clear. And to be quite frank, I understand that I don't understand it.

The new GPL have the following:

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

So patent law mixed with how I use the software, and privately at that. Can I use GPLv3 software in a company (it's not private, usually)? Can I modify it, but not distribute it outside the company? If I don't do this privately, but as a "corporate" person, then it's not private, so I can do what I want (of course not). This is just in the beginning of the new license, and it goes on and on and on and on etc.

Really, why not make a license that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand?

Re:Incomprehensible (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14485985)

First of all, it would have been a good idea to make a license that a lawyer would understand. The converse (as seen here) is rather bad for enforceability.

Re:Incomprehensible (1)

BobNET (119675) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486009)

Really, why not make a license that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand?

That's what the BSD license is for...

Re:Incomprehensible (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486030)

Really, why not make a license that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand?

A license that is easy to understand is not the purpose of the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to uphold the principles of Free Software.

If you want a license that's easy to understand, use another one, like BSD or MIT. Personally, I think that the FSF has demonstrated the ability to translate the here-represented complex ideas into valid legalese.

Re:Incomprehensible (1)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486113)

A license that is easy to understand is not the purpose of the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to uphold the principles of Free Software.

Only GPL is "Free Software", nevermind that they add more restrictions? How pretensious.

What valid legalese is... (1)

John Whorfin (19968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486164)

Valid legalese is money. My lawyer can beat up your lawyer.

All those words do exactly the opposite of what you think they do, each one is another "attack vector," if you will, for a well paid lawyer.

This license may very well "attempt to uphold the traditions of the FSF" but will ultimatly bring them down over an arguement along the lines of "depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

The BSD and MIT licenses, while accomplishing something very different, are short and non-ambiguous and therefore (more) defensible.

Re:What valid legalese is... (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486221)

Actually, its the opposite. Plain english is ambiguous. Legalese generally has very specific meanings for different terms. You may not know those meanings, but a lwayer and judge will. Using legalese helps assure it is interpreted the correct way, whereas plain english may get it in trouble.

Re:Incomprehensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486076)

>Can I use GPLv3 software in a company (it's not private, usually)?

i don't know which language your speak natively. I speak german natively and my dictionary told me that "private" also means "nicht öffentlich"== "not in public" which is a synonym what happens by in-house developement in companies.

>Really, why not make a license that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand?

Because lawyers and judges have to read and interpret the licenses and make ultimate decisions. Therefor it's good to write the license in their language and not in your language (which would probably create many side effects).

No more GPG encryption (1)

Ur@eus (148802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485951)

Only skimmed it so far, but I wonder if their eagerness to stop copyprotection and DRM scheemes means that you can't use the GPL3 for email applications supporting GPG encrpytion, or not at least without giving away your private GPG keys :)

Re:No more GPG encryption (3, Insightful)

Josh Triplett (874994) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486023)

No; this draft includes specific language handling that case: "a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it." In other words, this only covers cases where you don't have the key, such as devices which check signatures on their firmware binaries.

Re:No more GPG encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486033)

GPG is not DRM. It is for privacy, not for controlling the way others reproduce the content you send to them.

Re:No more GPG encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14486073)

If you're the copyright holder you can grant any license you want, or multiple licenses, or exceptions. If you don't like a clause in the GPLv3, include a specific exception to it in your licensing when you distribute your program.

Re:No more GPG encryption (3, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486108)

YOu're misreading the legalese. When it says that any GPLed program is not an effective DRM app, it means that by hacking around content protected by a GPL application, you are not breaking the DMCA. Because the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent a protection device, but the GPLed app is not legally a protection device, as per the GPL. It doesn't mean that you can't use encryption, but that its not illegal to reverse engineer an encryption system it uses.

Problem #1 and #2 (1)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485979)

It's a) to long and b) a lot more complicated than previous revisions. At least I kind of understood those. Now it's more a political manifesto, forcing everyone who touches the software to become vegeterian etc..

Differences between v3 and v2 (1)

EssenceLumin (755374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485984)

I was surprised there would be the ability to add clauses to the license. It seems this will make it more difficult for many people or (especially) organizations to accept, if they have to evaluate the legality for their situation of many similar but different licenses.

I have only read the license through once and have lots of questions to think about. My first impression though is it seems a lot more readable than v2 for which I read "This is legalese what does this mean in English?"

Re:Differences between v3 and v2 (1)

stefie10 (575819) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486104)

I think that these clauses are there to make the new GPL license compatable with other widely used free software licenses. (e.g. the patent retaliation clauses in the Apache License.)

Making your own, modified GPL (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14485997)

Shouldn't there be a possibility to make changes to the GPL and release your software under your own, derivative license? (Scary, I know, but someone might want to do it.) They seem to forbid it as it is now.

Re:Making your own, modified GPL (1)

daverabbitz (468967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486120)

>Shouldn't there be a possibility to make changes to the GPL and release your software under your own, derivative license? (Scary, I >know, but someone might want to do it.) They seem to forbid it as it is now.

I was under the impression that you could make derivatives, you just couldn't then go and call it the GPL, you had to call it something else. I could be entirely wrong though.

WHOA! Privacy and freedom all the way! (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486014)

Patents:

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


I like this one, specially the 'unencumbered by patents' part, but I'm not sure if this was already present in GPL v2.

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

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


DRM:


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


The only thing i didn't like was the "illegally invade users' privacy". It's the 'illegally' that concerns me, what if DRM is made legal? I can see a loophole in there. The 'nor for modes of distribution'... does it include 'illegally', too?

Perhaps they should be more explicit, I'm not sure...

An interesting point... (1)

mustafap (452510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486038)

Curious that a discussion of the GPL should bring out so many annoymous cowards.

I wonder why?

Must do some stats some day on proportion of AC comments verses subject matter.

Anyone else noticed a correlation?

Does anyone have any screenshots? (2, Funny)

stonedyak (267348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486082)

I can't wait to try it out! But are there any binaries to download? I can only seem to find the source code [fsf.org], and I don't have a compiler for Lawyer++.

Web services? (4, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486087)

There's been much debate for and against allowing people to "publish" modified GPLed web applications without releasing the source. For example, phpBB is released under the GPL, and some believe that you should be required to make any changes to it available to your site visitors.

I didn't see any wording in the draft that addresses this issue either way; every time I thought I did, I found the same or similar wording in version 2. So, is it in there? Will it affect how we publish web applications?

Relicense? (2, Interesting)

Julian Morrison (5575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14486233)

One question for OSS projects currently using GPL, will be, should they relicense?

For example, should Linux become GPL3'd?

Discuss...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...