GPL to be Modified to Penalize Patents and DRM 665
null etc. writes "MSNBC is running an article about how upcoming changes to the GPL will retaliate against companies that patent software or produce DRM'ed products. "Software patents are clearly a menace to society and innovation. We like this to be more explicit. The basic idea is that if someone patents software, he loses the right to use free software. It's like a patent retaliation clause.""
Taxation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.
--
You didn't know. [tinyurl.com]
What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxation? (Score:3, Interesting)
This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license. This obviously doesn't solve the problem because you can always use older GPLed software and modify it yourself to keep it up to date. The whole idea of free software is that it
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Insightful)
So we're going to freely share it with everyone we agree with.
This marks the end of any relevance the GPL has. I wonder what will replace it?
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably GPL v2. For many projects, if you don't like the new GPL, just don't use (you do have to remove the "or any future version" clause as the linux kernel and others have already done though).
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, remove all references of the GPL from the GPL, as well as the annoying crap.
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Insightful)
So you can't modify some GPLed software and release it under the "Mr. Underbridge Public License" (UPL?), but if you're a developer who just wrote something novel, you can surely apply your license to it.
But obviously you can't take something that's licensed under the GPL and "remove offending portions" that you don't like, before releasing your modifications. That would undermine the whole idea.
However if you're the copyright holder of the original code, as (I believe) Linus is of the kernel, then
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Insightful)
It didn't even work badly for Wine, they feared that it would lead to problems with people not contributing back. Nothing bad happened, they just got scared.
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Insightful)
No you are wrong. The developer should have rights on what they do with their software. I am a fan of GNU software and many of the idea, but the one thing that I hate is the idea that all software should be this way. I would rather put more focus on the fact that Software can be Copyrighted and Patented, where both rules affect each other, we should settle on one form and reject the other, My vote would be on copyrighted. Say I make a program that is used for military reason
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Insightful)
At the very lowest level, the GPL is about `free' software. Not free as in beer, but free as in freedom (though free as in beer tends to come along with it as well.) However, the GPL is not the most `free' license out there. It puts signifigant restrictions on what you can do with the code, but these restrictions are generally something that companies and people can live with.
The idea is that these restrictions are needed to keep the software `free'. And while many disagree, many do agree that it's a good thing.
However, the idea that you can't use GPL software at all if you patent software or use DRM, well, that's nuts. That's about as un-free as possible, and I suspect that it will lead to people either 1) using the old version of the GPL or 2) discarding the GPL entirely for a BSD or other license.
Certainly, I don't expect any companies to decide not to patent software or use DRM just because of this new GPL.
RMS has done a lot of good things for the ideas of open source software and free software and such, and has personally given us several excellent pieces of software (like emacs, the King of Editors! :) But he's also sort of a fringe character, and has many kook-like characteristics. Pushing a GPL that doesn't allow the use of the software by certain people will only make his views even less relevant ...
Join us now and share the software [gnu.org] indeed.
In any event, I don't think the post you were responding to was coming from your typical `warez puppy' mindset, which seems to be how you responded to it. It looked sarcastic to me.
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Informative)
The windshield is a bad analogy. I don't agree that an analogy is needed at all here.
The new licence does not say that you cannot charge for your work. It is designed to be incompatible with Patents and DRM. This is distinct to copyright.
Much copyrighted software, written for profit and sold for profit, is developed using GPL components. This is not illegal.
Currently, software patents are invalid in Europe and other parts of the world. This has not prevented people earning a living writing code. You could make a strong argument that it actually helps.
DRM is a seperate issue. DRM is a tool that could be used positively, but with the current balance of power, is going to be used to the detriment of most people.
In using the GPL as a weapon against patents and DRM, the factions are going to divide into more extreme camps, but it's a misunderstanding of the amendments to GPL to confuse Patents with Copyright and to think it bars employment.
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Insightful)
if software that was under the GPL, were encumbered with patents or crippled with DRM, then by definition, it isn't free (as in libre) anymore.
in this world we live in, "kooks" are the most sane and reasonable people it seems.
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Interesting)
Being a long-time observer of GNU and the GPL I'm confident in going out on a limb and predicting what such penalties would be. They would be identical to the penalities for using proprietary software - i.e. you can't use GPL'd code in a program that contains implementations of software patents nor implementations of DRM.
Actually, the current mess with patents in the US, software and other, would be greatly improved if the Patent Office would merely apply it's own rules -- that something to be patented must not be obvious to the layperson, and must not be covered by prior art.
Those are not the rules. More specifically "not be obvious to the layperson" is not a rule. In section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, it is required that an innovation be of a ''nonobvious'' nature, that is, it must not be an improvement that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
You could argue that something obvious to a layman would be doubly obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, but you could also argue that one with "ordinary skill" may also be wearing mental blinders because of that training, preventing them from thinking out of the box in the way that a layman might do more easily.
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Insightful)
So it doesn't look like we need panic just yet. The draft isn't yet written, and there's going to be plenty of time to offer feedback once that happens.
The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it. The new license will be saying something like: "Hey, you can have thi
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, as far as I'm concerned, they can take all the time they need to get it right. It's an important work :)
Maybe, but maybe not. If nothing else, it's not 100% clear to me who the licence affects when it's based on copyright. Namely, does it apply to the person offering the copy, or the person receiving it?
The person originating the work holds the copyight - the right to copy - the work alone. He ma
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't retrospectively change licences. And indeed, software authors can happilly still release software under the old GPL if they want.
The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it.
No, really it doesn't (in the case of the GPL). GPL'd software gives people the freedom to do what they want with it within limits. If I was allowed to do what I wa
Re:What about software under older GPL? Re:Taxatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. Section 9 of the GPL reads:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each versio nis given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by hte 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.
So, this threat only has teeth if the latest version of the GPL does away with this retroactivity. It would have to allow users to elect only a version including the "patent punishment" clause.
But that's not the biggest issue. Here's the biggest issue: Does the "patent punishment" clause trigger if the company patents (A) software related to the GPLed software, or (B) any kind of software?
Either option has issues:
(A) If the clause only triggers for software derived from the GPLed code, then that's fair and straightforward. It's also completely redundant with Section 6 of the current GPL:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Thus, this option is non-newsworthy.
(B) If it's a threat to punish companies that seek any software patent, then this raises a host of untenable issues. Obvious problems:
Thus, this option is extremely problematic. It probably poses a much greater threat to small companies, and GPLed software itself, than to the stereotypical "bad guys" in the software patent biz. You can almost hear the industry fat cats rubbing their hands in glee, muttering, "Yes, please go ahead and kill the concept of GPL."
- David Stein
Re:Taxation? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Taxation? (Score:4, Informative)
Except, the quotes are direct quotes from the EU Free Software President. And besides, Microsoft sold the off its stake in MSNBC. Also, you'll notice the register has the story as well.
Re:Taxation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because a law exists in a capitalistic country doesn't mean it supports capitalism. In fact, taxation is the exact opposite of pure capitalism.
I believe what you're talking about is "corporate welfare"; hardly a concept grown of the free market.
Re:Taxation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah yes, the "everyone should pay for my stuff" theory.
What about the very large number of people who *don't* download music? The small amount of music I buy, I prefer to have uncorrupted, on physical media.
I really don't see why I should be paying for other people's recreation, and I especially don't see why my money should be going to *crap* musicians/bands, sin
Georg Greve of FSFE has posted a clarification: (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a statement from Georg Greve [fsfeurope.org]:
there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.
The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.
As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
That has been a most unpleasant experience.
Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President
Re:Taxation? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just that a lot of developers buy into it. I did myself for a long time.
There are plenty of other licenses - use them instead if you're not into the politics.
A bold one (Score:3, Insightful)
Just makes the implicit explicit (Score:2)
This change is just pointing out a situation that already exists, and ensuring that if you pick up some GPL code that it is at least as patent-trouble free as the creators could make it, that nothing is hidden by the makers to trap you later.
It depends on the specifics (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforcement might be a better clause, and since the article doesn't reveal the exact wording, that may in fact be what is intended. I.e. filing for and receiving a patent may not invalidate your license to use GPLed V. 3 software, but enforcing the patent might be. An additional clause allowing a patent to be enforced if it has also been granted without strings attached to any and all GPLed software might be another stance.
You definitely don't want to hamstring GPL friendly companies from enforcing patents if they are attacked by Microsoft's patent portfolio, or make it impossible for companies to use GPLed software because they feel they have to file defensive patents, but you also don't want to allow Microsoft et. al. to use GPLed software when their policy is to destroy it via software patents.
So, perhaps the best approach:
"This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company files for and receives a software patent and does not explicitly license any and all use of that patent to all GPLed software free of any requirements (monetary or otherwise) except those stated in the GPL, and if they ever seek to enforce that patent in a non-defensive matter. I.e. the only enforcement of said patent which will not revoke this license is one that is in direct retaliation of a patent enforcement action by another firm or person."
Of course, the lawyers would need to clean up the language quite a bit, but you get the gist.
GPL friendly companies can then patent software, use it to defend themselves against the depridations of Microsoft, Apple, etc., but any and all Free Software released under the GPL would be protected in perpetuity.
Re:It depends on the specifics (Score:3, Interesting)
What would IBM, Sun, and MySQL gain? What would they lose?
Re:It depends on the specifics (Score:3, Interesting)
It is also trivially defeated by a shell company. Microsoft I
Re:It depends on the specifics (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I don't think GPLv3 will look like the grandparent, (Everyone here seems to be duped by blatant spin from fucking MSNBC and Reuters) but where does the prospective GPL-snippet in the grandparent post say anything about telling someone what to do with his software?
It does tell people that they're not allowed to use patents, bu
Re:A bold one (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't have adoption by the big boys, then you don't have adoption, period. Even Microsoft has both a Mac and Linux department. If you remove their ability to load Linux then you remove their incentive even to attempt interoperability.
If this is adopted as stated (dobtful since it wasn't very specific) either the GPL version that includes these clauses will die, or GPLed software will die. Personally, I hope for the former.
TW
Re:A bold one (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS + shotgun (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the more likely scenario (compared to IBM just quitting Linux) is that the Linux kernel would continue to be distributed via the old GPL - with one possible modification - the "or any newer version" clause. Not sure how that would affect newer versions of many of the GNU tools released with most versions of linux. I expect much forking.
Aft
Re:A bold one (Score:3, Interesting)
Picture a world where Linus Torvalds would be fucking stupid enough to adopt this bullshit. Can't? Yep, it'd only happen in a Twilight Zone episode.
Linux ain't going GPL 3.0 if this is how it's being designed, and I'm willing to bet 99% of open source won't employ it either (discounting all the unfinished projects on SourceForge, of course). Only a few fanatics will adopt the license, and we can just ignore them - as all fanatics should b
Re:A bold one (Score:4, Insightful)
However, it seems that this is just a way to update the GPL for the times and completely consistent with its original goals. That is, the GPL exists to ensure that people both have the freedom to extend and to share the software that they're using with others. Originally, copyrights and lack of distribution of the original source code were the means that commercial vendors would use to prevent such extension and sharing. Consequently, the GPL was written so that anyone given a copy of the code was also given the right to obtain the source as well as share the code/program with others.
Today, software patents figure much more prominently into the picture, and are being used in a way that undermines the sprite and goals of the GPL. For example, a company like IBM/Sun/Microsoft can release two versions of a product. One being a slightly crippled GPL'ed 'community edition' and the other being full featured non-GPL'ed edition. Now, without software patents, diligent programmers could extend the community edition so that it would have all the features of the commercial non-GPL'ed version. However, with a handful of software patents, the company in question could easily block such a move with the threat of legal retribution.
Additionally, software patents allow some companies (*cough* Google *cough*) to make extensive use of GPL software, and then proceed to make extensive use of the patent system and obtain/file-for patents that could in principle be used to block the development of some types of Free/GPL'ed software (e.g. in Google's case, think a GPL'ed enterprise search appliance, desktop search tool, or even just a plain old open source web search engine package).
So, the proposed ways in which the GPL might change just seem like reasonable efforts to protect from those who would use the patent system to undermine the original spirit while simultaneously gaining a competitive advantage by making us of GPL software.
Non starter (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet a lot of people will start releasing their stuff with a specific version of the GPL. Political wrangling like this doesn't belong.
IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
-Peter
No shit (Score:3, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, RMS decides that punishing the largest contributers is a pretty good idea.
So long, and thanks for all the code. So sad that you should have to go.
Agreed. More harm than good. (Score:3, Insightful)
And what about the customers of companies who insist (in some cases for good reason) on either
Isn't it childish? (Score:4, Insightful)
Too early for speculation. (Score:3, Insightful)
And once drafted, the FSF will most certainly be accepting feedback from the community.
Feedback (Score:5, Informative)
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3 [fsfeurope.org]
Here's the announcement:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release
Boy, am I glad that
$0.02 from me (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if they want to put in the clause that says "If you try to patent something that's in GPL software, then turn around and use said software, *then* you lose the ability to use it". This would prevent SCO like actions of "We'll use what we want, and sue you anyway" (yes, I know they're sueing off of contract or copyrights or whatever it is this week - but just go with me here).
Anyway, as stated, that's just my $0.02 after reading the article. IMHO, so on and so forth, so I could be wrong.
Re:$0.02 from me (Score:3, Insightful)
How about something along the lines of prohibiting companies from using gpl stuff in building drm schemes ?
Linus and his patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
GPL goes off the cliff (Score:2, Insightful)
"Free as in speech -- as long as you're saying what we want you to say". No way is this going to work.
Two points (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things here:
1/ I think this "kind of BS" is far less revolutionary than the "kind of BS" the original GPL was in its time.
2/ Corporations need open-source, not the opposite.
I share this attitude of restricking the rights of people who try to prevent me from coding certain algorithms. They hurt me, I don't want them to use for free the stuff I make. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Re:GPL goes off the cliff (Score:3, Insightful)
Not good for open source (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL already seems scary enough to me already, being that if Stallman wants to change the GPL then the license for your program changes too...
So what happens if someone makes a load of GPL'd software then comes up with some brilliant ideas and patents it? What happens to all his previous work?
I don't see how this is going to help free software at all. It just makes the prospect of it more scary, IMO - I'm all for free software, but I still think that closed source and proprietary software (to an exte
Free Software, My Ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the article, not the headline... (Score:5, Informative)
The draft version may contain a proposal to penalize those companies which use digital rights management (DRM) software which protects songs and films against piracy, and which is seen as an anomaly by the free software association.
So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best.
Re:Read the article, not the headline... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that i distilled from it is this: FSF Europe (which is not FSF itself) got a grant from NLnet and filled a press release with speculation.
They have balls! (Score:2)
And although I don't like the GPL (I prefer MIT/BSD terms), I really appreciate that RMS and the GPL crowd have such balls to do this one.
It is a long time coming -- finally the GPL people figure they are big enough to make a difference where it really counts.
They really care about this stuff!
Consider the source (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move on.
A restrictive GPL will go unused. (Score:2)
Not a good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, mp3...out the window for using OSS, so why should they bother making their codec linux compatible?
What about all that stuff that IBM is putting out? For that matter, now Novell, Redhat.....WHOOPS. Guess the GPL will effectively kill off several major players....
Stallman, I hate to say this, but yo
Going way too far ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't Know (Score:2)
Its no longer about innovation. Its about a landgrab. "Method for drawing on screen graphics using a video device." for example. That is a lot of land! It would be like me laying claim to area enough to cover six of today's states back in the days
No way (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM holds piles of software patents, but most of us will agree that they've done much for the OSS community
Socialist tendencies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, bravo. Push the big corporations back into Microsofts waiting arms.
Set up "JUDGES" to will decide who in society can use GPL and who cannot.
And then the hackers will just come up with REALLY FREE software when Linux becomes to burdened with legal and governmental restrictions.
Ok, so what happens to projects like Media-S? (Score:2)
How about Media-S [sidespace.com], which is a GPL'd DRM?
It's almost a philosophy question. Will Media-S dissolve in a puff of logic? Can the GPL create a rock so big it can't lift it?
/., the foxnews of tech reporting (Score:5, Informative)
How do I know?
Because the process of drafting and discussiong the GPL3 has just started.
Here's todays press release from the FSF Europe
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release
and here:
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/gplv3 [fsfeurope.org]
is the mailing list, in case you want to participate in the discussion.
Re:/., the foxnews of tech reporting (Score:4, Funny)
Because you phrase everything as a question so people give you all the answers?
Horrible idea. Just horrible. (Score:4, Informative)
What am I going to do?
That's right ladies and gentlemen, run to Microsoft or another non-GPL vendor. I'm sure Bill would be happy to have me back.
Seriously. What if Microsoft added a clause to their licensing that says you can't run it on a network with any other operating systems?
Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible. (Score:4, Informative)
Now the New GPL comes along and tells me I can't use Linux, Apache, Tomcat, etc.
None of those applications will be affected - Linux is specifically under version 2 of the GPL, Apache and Tomcat are under the Apache License. Even so, If any major opensource project were affected, you would see forks of the codebase happen at the last viably licensed point, just like what happeend with Xfree.
Re:Horrible idea. Just horrible. (Score:4, Insightful)
More likely, you're a company that has done little more than lay claim to various methods of software implementation. Unless it's something fairly unique and truly innovative, calling it "IP" is a little presumptuous. From what I've seen, most of what's patented doesn't qualify.
Bingo! You get it! (Score:3, Interesting)
The GNU license, as opposed to the MIT or BSD-w/o advertising clause, was about encouraging OTHERS to give away software. Why is GNU Readline GPL and not LGPL? Because if you want to build applications with that functionality, you need to release it under the GPL, or I suppose, something GPL-compatible and
Another link... (Score:3, Informative)
There's another article here [channelregister.co.uk] for anyone who's interested.
TFA might have overstated it a bit - and they also say that it's not certain that it'll be put into the GPL either.
This draft will never be more than a draft (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, the story should say that a new *draft* of the GPL will... yada. yada, yada. And we can all think of thousands of powerful opponents who will not evaluate that draft favorably. It will never move past the draft phase.
MSNBC article is obsolete, misquotes the FSF (Score:5, Informative)
Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
eWeek [eweek.com]
Reuters.com [reuters.com]
One can be anti-swpat and pro-business (Score:3, Informative)
My opposition to software patents stems from concerns over their effect on the economy, the industry (except for a few large corporations), and innovation. I'm pro-copyright, pro-trademarks, pro-trade secrets, and even pro-patents in those areas in which they're justified and necessary.
I'm not really FSF-aligned, nor have I worked with them po
Your own education should start with HTML basics (Score:3, Interesting)
It's no brainwash to focus on the problem of software patents. The fact that something can be implemented in hardware as well doesn't make a patent any more desirable.
When I say that I'm against software patents, I'm against patents on algorithms that serve a pure data processing purpose and don't constitute an invention in a field of applied natural science. A superior anti-lock braking system that is powered
From the front page of fsf.org (Score:3, Insightful)
They want to deny some people Freedom 0 [gnu.org], the ability to run the software; never mind viewing or editing the source. I fail to see how curtailing some people's access to software moves the world closer to software freedom for all. This reaction is the sort of thing I expect from the pragmatic OSI folks, not the idealistic FSF folks.
Luckily, license upgrade is not automatic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like.... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you take something Free (as in speech) and place any kind of restriction on it, it is no longer Free. Then it's just free (as in beer), with value to nobody.
Forking the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
to
I hate software patents as much as the next guy, and I think a lot of DRM implementations are stupid and evil, but it's not such an absolute that I want to tether my software to an ideological fight against those things.
For one, I *can* see some cases where DRM is not totally evil. Apple's iTunes Music Store (iTMS) is a good example--they struck a decent balance between usability and convincing the music execs the service was safe. Now, I know people have legitimate objections to the iTMS DRM (FairPlay), but if Apple hadn't gone with DRM, the iTMS would never have happened. I don't think Apple deserves to be penalized for that--they've done the best with the cards they were dealt. Apple has also made significant contributions to the Free Software community--do we really want to shut them out?
As another example, I do research in quantum computing. Suppose I develop some sort of new process or technology relating to quantum computing, and my university pushes for a patent on it. In the world of quantum computing, what is "software" and what is "hardware" is very fuzzy. Could I get shut out of using GPL'd software over that? I might not even have a choice about whether to patent or not--I had to sign a patent agreement when I enrolled here.
The FSF should stick to their original mission for the GPL. By trying to make it too broad, they're going to hurt everyone.
Oh, and "cultural flat fee" with internet access? What the hell? This is like Canada's levy on blank recordable media that goes to pay Canadian "artists" like Celine Dion. I can't think of a worse system for music than putting the government in charge of it. If you thought the RIAA was bad, just wait until Uncle Sam is in charge. Get ready for the "War on Inappropriate Rap Lyrics", the "War on Peer-to-Peer Networks", etc.
This is probably a misunderstanding (FUD)... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably the GPL will state that you cannot enforce patents or apply DRM to a something that you are releasing as GPL, and i think that this would make a lot of sense today.
Free (to your friends) == Not Free (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember that, about 10 years ago, the FSF was unhappy at Apple and such using FSF software and tried to limit it's use at such companies. However, any wording (except maybe "software cannot be used by XYZ corporation") that attempts to restrict use to only a certain subset of orgaizations only serves to decrease its appeal to all organizations.
The kernel... (Score:3, Interesting)
Um... wouldn't this work against the Linux Kernel as well?
As we have seen in the past, there are probably some 200+ patented technologies embedded within the Linux Kernel. One we know about is RCU(Read/Copy/Update). There are no doubt others...
Since the kernel contains patented technology, does this mean that the kernel can not be covered under the GPL? Hmm... maybe Stallman *IS* trying to do us a favor...:)
Ugh. (Score:3, Interesting)
One bright point is that most software packages will probably offer you a level of choice as to what restrictions get placed on GPL code. Recall this paragraph from GPL v2:
So, for instance, jzIntv [spatula-city.org], my Intellivision emulator, is offered under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Unless GPL v3 offers my users something that GPL v2 doesn't, my users can decide not to subject themselves to GPL v3.
Now what isn't clear by that wording is if someone could fork this "GPL v2 or later" code and make it GPL v3 only without the copyright holder(s) (me, for most of it) giving permission. I think the answer's "yes." But that won't remove the GPL v2 code from the planet. And so just as you see some projects pick the proprietary-friendly BSD license over the GPL (since each has a different notion of freedom), I think you'll see GPL'd projects split along v2 / v3 lines as well. In my case, I may not even be able to publish code under GPL v3. My hands are "unclean." Looky here, my name is on 1 [uspto.gov], 2 [uspto.gov], 3 [uspto.gov], 4 [uspto.gov] software-related patents! I promise they are not as asinine as "one-click," and much narrower in scope.
Also, I'm one of the co-architects of several device security features that my employer will include on multiple upcoming chips. These features will be used by our customers to implement DRM! I didn't implement DRM myself. Rather, like the TPM chip, we provide an infrastructure that could be used for good or evil. But I did my best to make the infrastructure watertight. Sorry folks.
--JoeMisquotes Managed -- see The Register (Score:5, Informative)
The Register had a story [theregister.co.uk] on this earlier in the day, complete with a clarification from FSF Europe president Georg Greve:
So, not "companies using software patents lose rights to GPL software," more like "if a company uses patents to attack $GPL_SOFT_PACKAGE, they forfeit rights to $GPL_SOFT_PACKAGE". Sounds fairly reasonable to me. If you want to use the software, agree that you won't use patents to kill it off, whilst internally nabbing the copyrighted code for your own (redistributed) products.
-Q
Article misrepresents (Score:4, Informative)
The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software.
If you patent something related to the way that Apache serves web pages, you are no longer permitted to distribute Apache under the GPL.
If you patent something related to the way Linux's memory management works, you are no longer permitted to distribute Linux under the GPL.
Sounds good to me--- Basically, its an addition the GPL saying, "If you patent some aspect of your software in an attempt to restrict redistribution through non-copyright-based legal tools, your software may no longer be distributed under the GPL"
This is a NECESSARY addition. Otherwise, whats to stop some company from patenting X related to some feature they just contributed to the Linux kernel, waiting 2 years for that feature to become widely used, and then sue everyone using the kernel into oblivion?
Re:Article misrepresents (Score:3, Informative)
I think you are right. it basically equates to "You cannot use our stuff if you're taking us to court."
A rare occurrence, but it does seem today that The Register's journalism actually clarifies something:
He was speaking to El Reg after an article on Reuters quoted him as saying that anyone who patented software would be prevented from using free software. Greve says this is not quite what he was getting at:
"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under
"open source" vs. "free software" (Score:4, Informative)
Patents and BSD (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you change from a GPL to a BSD license will not protect you. It's not just GPL licensed software that's in danger..it's ALL free licensed software that's vulnerable including those under the BSD license.
MSNBC is TROLLING (Score:4, Informative)
To summarize:
"Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
.
.
.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
That has been a most unpleasant experience."
Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President
Re:"free" (Score:2)
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that the ultimate source for the article is the FSF.
OMG, the FSF is spreading FUD against free software. What will we do?!?
Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth (Score:2)
GPL was already tried in court and it won. Welte v. Fortinet and some other.
Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth (Score:2)
Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth (Score:3)
1. I.ll clean up
2. I.ll get a job
3. I.ll prove my worth to my employer
4. I.ll work my way up to CEO
5. I.ll make lots of money so I can retire and fish all day.
No, wait!! I already fish all day! Grandpa was no dummy!
Re:Let's Hope this Gets Some Legal Teeth (Score:3, Funny)
Stop being such an elitist prick... the slashdot, hell the internet in general, should not discriminate against schizophrenics. :)
Re:This is cutting off your nose to spite your fac (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Taxing Your Internet Connection (Score:3, Funny)