GPL Revision Coming Soon 469
ebresie writes "E-Week makes mention that GPL Version 3 is coming soon which will revise the GPL for the first time in a while."
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Informative)
The changes planned for the next release, Version 3, a draft of which is due next year,...
Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Now, did anybody follow all that? And I'm not even sure I got it all right. The next version will be long overdue.
Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3 (Score:2, Informative)
Re: the definition of 'soon' (Score:3, Informative)
Well, we have only ~6 weeks to go in 2004. If the draft came out in early January I imagine we could call that 'soon', particularly since v2 has been in place for a while.
I was going to make a snarky comment about (defining soon) == (the Clinton defense) but decided to behave.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Prototype (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:5, Informative)
they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible
Have you ever looked? Here let me help
Windows XP Home here [microsoft.com]
Windows 98 Downloads here [microsoft.com]
A whole bunch more [clendons.co.nz]
Re:Patents and compatiability? (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is pushing a political agenda: "preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software." (from front page of gnu.org)
That restriction is the #1 thing that does support that agenda - if people find GPLed code useful enough that they want to use it, they will need to let others do likewise when they distribute their code.
I find it's not always what I want to do with my code (my agenda is often more in line with BSD), but it strikes me as genius in this means to achieve its end.
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
No, it doesn't. The recommended language for using the GPL suggests that you allow that, but the license itself doesn't require it.
A number of prominent authors (I believe Alan Cox is one) release only under v2 for precisely this reason.
Note, too, that the standard copyright disclaimer you sign if you're releasing software to the FSF has language in it that terminates those rights if they distribute under a non-free license (see the disclaimer form for exact wording).
Not as simple as previously stated. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, private derivatives are allowed. Having the freedom to make derivatives one does not share with others in any form is required by the definition of free software [gnu.org]:
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law. And the GPLv2 specifically states that it does not control this activity:
So, no, "if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well" is untrue.
Also, you have (perhaps inadvertantly) repeated one of the most misleading parts of the article (and the editorial linked to the article): Associating the GPL with the open source movement profound miscredits who did what and what goals the GPL was written to achieve.
This latest revision of the GPL has almost nothing to do with "OSS" development. The open source movement (which doesn't like to talk about software freedom [gnu.org]) did not exist when the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The free software movement (which is based on software freedom) predates the open source movement by over a decade. This upcoming version (version 3) of the GPL will be the first version of the GPL written since the open source movement started. As far as I know, nobody from the open source movement is writing the next revision of the GPL; it is still written by the people at the FSF (most notably, RMS and Eben Moglen, both of whom make it quite clear in their speeches that they are doing work to promote software freedom). So, the open source movement is receiving a great deal of credit for work it did not do and the danger of tying the GPL with the open source movement is that the open source movement's philosophy, which doesn't object to proprietary software, will be conflated with a license built to create and maintain a commons where software freedom is the rule.
Re:GPL Server Hole (Score:2, Informative)
That suggests it is not a hole at all. This is intuitively correct: I should not have to release my modifications just because I showed somebody the output from my program.
Re:GNU Icon (Score:3, Informative)
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
Linux Torvalds, however, distributes the Linux kernel under that license.
See This post (and thread) [iu.edu] on the linux-kernel list.
Citation Please? (Score:3, Informative)
Server Hole versus LAMP? (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, to my untrained eye the Affero GPL [affero.org] (an alternative license suggested by GNU themselves) sucks. Section 2a reads:
Gigantic loopholes include:
I think I understand what they're trying to do, but again, is it a good idea? Does anyone have a good idea about how to really accomplish it? Are there any licenses right now that don't have the glaring holes of the Affero GPL?
Re:Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible? (Score:3, Informative)
While we won't know yet, a big issue with all this is how compatible the licences will be with each other. While there is a fair amount of software that says it's compatible with GPL 2 or greater, much is specifically locked to a specific version.
The last sentence of the article:
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's not -- it's between the Gates and Dreyfoos Towers, but "officially" on the Dreyfoos side. See? [mit.edu]
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . . (Score:2, Informative)
Making money from software is NOT immoral, and yes there are plenty of ways to make money in a competitive (non monopoly) marketplace.
Re:Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, et (Score:3, Informative)
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
As I said in the post you were replying to, GPLv2 says no such thing--that was, indeed, the point of my post.
There is a recommended way of releasing your software under the GPL which includes the statement
Note, though that this statement is NOT part of the GPL. It is merely a common way of legally releasing software under the GPL, and is recommended in Appendix A of the FSF's COPYING--but is clearly after the uppercase "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS", in a section called "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" that includes a number of other recommendations that are not part of the GPL (e.g. recommended disclaimers of warranty, program startup messages, etc).
The GPL itself says the following (in section 8):
Clearly implying that the "any later version" wording is NOT the only way to release under the GPL.
Among the programs that DO NOT use the "any later version" clause is the Linux kernel; the COPYING file from the Linux source tree says:
As another poster pointed out, Alan Cox is not one of the developers who avoids "any later version", but Linus is.