| GPLv3 authors comment on final draft |
Jun. 01, 2007
At long last, the final draft of the GNU GPLv3 (General Public License, version 3) is out. While companies and attorneys are taking their time in reacting to this latest version, two of the GPLv3's three primary authors have shared their opinions on the almost-completed work.
In a public letter, "Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3," Stallman, Richard M. Stallman, the GPL's chief author and founder, opens by explaining why open-source developers should upgrade their programs to the new Version 3 GPL. In the past, prominent Linux developers objected to the new license. More recently, a Microsoft-sponsored study claimed that open-source programmers actually don't want GPLv3-style patent protection.
In response to such concerns, Stallman stated that "Software patents are a vicious and absurd system that puts all software developers in danger of being sued by companies they have never heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in the field. Large programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no surprise if they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. Patents already obstruct free software development."
While the ultimate answer for making "software development safe is to abolish software patents," that's beyond what the GPLv3 can do, according to Stallman. Instead, he said, "the explicit patent license of GPLv3 makes sure companies that use the GPL to give users the four freedoms cannot turn around and use their patents to tell some users 'That doesn't include you.' It also stops them from colluding with other patent holders to do this."
At the same time, the controversial Novell-Microsoft patent deal has been "grandfathered" into the GPLv3. A new clause will let companies -- like Novell distribute GPLv3 software even if they have made such patent partnerships, so as long as the deal was made before March 28.
Patent pact poison pill
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) explained to eWEEK's Peter Galli that free software companies are concerned that earlier drafts of GPLv3's language proposed would also target them because of pre-existing broad patent cross-licenses, that don't harm the community.
"This would have the side effect of allowing Novell to distribute software under GPLv3. We are still evaluating the risks and costs associated with this text, and look forward to additional feedback," an FSF representative said.
Nevertheless, Stallman explained, "Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is designed to turn them against Microsoft, extending that limited patent protection to the whole community."
"In order to take advantage of this, programs need to use GPLv3," Stallman continued.
"Microsoft's lawyers are not stupid, and next time they may manage to avoid those mistakes. GPLv3 therefore says they don't get a 'next time.' Releasing a program under GPL version 3 protects it from Microsoft's future attempts to make redistributors collect Microsoft royalties from the program's users," added Stallman.
In an email interview with Linux-Watch, Richard Fontana, counsel for the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center), explained what went into this decision.
"The decision embodied in the Last Call Draft to grandfather the Microsoft/Novell deal from the requirements of section 11, paragraph 7 will, I hope, not prove to be very controversial," Fontana said. "I think Richard Stallman today gave the best argument for why the grandfathering is appropriate."
"There is another provision, section 11, paragraph 6, which causes Microsoft's narrow promises of patent safety to certain Novell customers to be extended to all recipients of GPLv3-covered software traceable to Microsoft's distribution of Novell SLES coupons," explained Fontana. "The effectiveness of this provision in providing defenses to assertion of Microsoft patents against free software relies on Novell using GPLv3-covered software in SLES. Were the Microsoft/Novell deal not grandfathered out of paragraph 7, Novell would be unlikely to do so."
Thus, this version of the GPLv3 would enable Novell, as far as the FSF is concerned, to continue to distribute Linux, which would soon contain GPLv3 protected programs, like the FSF's own gcc compiler, and other free software programs, like Samba, whose developers have announced that they will be moving their code to the GPLv3.
According to Fontana, "With one exception, there are no changes that could be called changes in fundamental policy. That one exception is that GPLv3 now recognizes, within carefully defined limits, the right to have outside contractors make private modifications on your behalf, and the right to contract with companies to have them run data center operations for you. We predict that stating this explicit permission in the license will benefit large enterprise end users of GPL-covered software, particularly those in the financial services sector."
Tivoization tactics
While the GPLv3 still blocks "tivoization," Stallman said, "The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion explicitly.)"
"Tivoization," Stallman explained, "means computers (called 'appliances') contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise."
Thus, devices meant for consumers must have truly free code if they use GPLv3-protected programs. On the other hand, a developer could create a "private" GPLv3 program for purely business use.
Apache affinity
Although it didn't require any major changes, Fontana believes that "The full achievement of Apache license compatibility is a great accomplishment for GPLv3. We have until now lived in a world in which two great free software code bases, the GPL base and the Apache base, cannot be mixed."
"That will now change. The reaction to the last draft taught us that many developers saw Apache compatibility as a primary reason to use the new license. We heard those developers loud and clear, and so we sat down with representatives of the Apache Software Foundation and figured out what FSF had to change in GPLv3 to make the Apache license compatible with it," continued Fontana.
This had been a goal of the GPLv3 all along, but toward the end of the drafting process it began to look like Apache license compatibility wouldn't be achieved.
In conclusion, Fontana said, "I think our work now is basically done. We have a license that is carefully designed to be useful and attractive to a broad range of developers, users, and businesses, and to work consistently and predictably from country to country, while meeting the FSF's core policy objectives of preserving and strengthening the commons of free software licensed under the GPL. We will listen closely to all comments received from the community during the next month, but as of today I do not expect any changes, other than those of a purely editorial or stylistic nature, to be made between now and June 29th, when the FSF plans to formally publish the final version of GPLv3."
-- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Do you have comments on this story?
Talkback here
NOTE: Please post your comments regarding our articles using the above link. Be sure to use this article's title as the "Subject" in your posts. Before you create a new thread, please check to see if a discussion thread is already running on the article you plan to comment on. Thanks!
(Click here for further information)
|
|
|
7 Advantages of D2D Backup
For decades, tape has been the backup medium of choice. But, now, disk-to-disk (D2D) backup is gaining in favor. Learn why you should make the move in this whitepaper.
4 Legal Reasons to Control Internet Access
The Internet is obviously a valuable resource for many organizations. However, many are exposed to legal liability concerns because they fail to control Internet access. Learn if you're safe in this white paper.
Rapidly Resolve J2EE Application Problems
Whether you are in the process of building J2EE applications or have J2EE applications already running in production, you must ensure that they deliver the expected ROI. Learn how in this white paper.
Load Testing 2.0 for Web 2.0
There are many unknowns in stress testing Web 2.0 applications. Find out how to test the performance of Web 2.0 in this white paper.
Build Better Games Online
For the game infrastructure providers, life is complex. Making money from games has become more complicated. Why? Find out in this white paper.
Building a Virtual Infrastructure from Servers to Storage
This white paper discusses the virtual storage solutions that reduce cost, increase storage utilization, and address the challenges of backing up and restoring Server environments.
Gaining Faster Wireless Connections with WiMAX
Welcome to what is quickly becoming the hyperconnected world where anything that would benefit from being connected to the network will be connected. Learn more in this white paper.
Is Your Desktop a Security Threat?
The new wave of sophisticated crimeware not only targets specific companies, but also targets desktops and laptops as backdoor entryways into those business’ operations and resources. Learn how to stay safe in this white paper.
Increasing SAN Reliability by 100 Percent
Storage area networks (SAN) are a strong part of storage plans. Learn how to increase your reliability and uptime by 100 percent in this case study.
|
|
|
|
|
news feed