Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek)
eWeek takes a
look at the GNU General Public License version 3. ""[The GPL] is
now serving beyond what we would have said was its projected life," Moglen
said. Software and the industry have changed radically over the past 10
years, "so there's a certain amount of cleaning up to do that simply has to
do with settling the license into the contemporary environment," he said.
Any changes made to the GPL will need to confront some difficult
issues. For example, patent defense clauses will be a big topic of concern
for GPL 3, Moglen said, and talks will center on the use of copyrights to
retaliate against patent law. "We perceive some difficulty and enormous
complexity in the fact that the GPL is a worldwide license and the global
law of patents is not uniform," he said."
(Log in to post comments)
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 4:49 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] given that a significant number of projects are currently licensed as GPL v2, NOT GPL v2 or later I seriously doubt if a GPL v3 will have a real chance to work well.
the worst case would be a rush to license projects as GPLv3 but not GPLv2 which would start fragmenting things significantly.
the kernel source for example has been GPLv2 only for several years and as a practical matter tracking down all the contributers to change it to GPL v2 or GPL v3 is going to be a horrible task
supposed to be backwards compatible(?) Posted Nov 23, 2004 4:55 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] The primary goal is ensuring that code licensed under the current version of the GPL, Version 2, can be combined with code licensed under Version 3, said officials of the Boston-based FSF. If it's really going to be backwards compatible with GPLv2, then the existing GPLv2-only code is not a major problem. That would seem to considerably restrict what they can possibly change in GPLv3, however.
supposed to be backwards compatible(?) Posted Nov 23, 2004 9:44 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] My guess is that the only thing that will make the GPL 3 compatible with version 2 is the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" text found in license headers.
In order for some other license to be compatible with the GPL version 2 for the purpose of producing a derivative work, it must not impose any additional restrictions. However, one of the stated aims of the GPL version 3 is to close the "ASP loophole" (ie. if you provide a service to others over the network using modified versions of GPL software, you aren't distributing the software so you can keep your modifications private), which would involve adding a restriction not found in version 2.
Projects that decided to specify "GPL version 2 only" will need to contact all copyright holders if they want to move to the GPL version 3 in the future. This might happen if it includes some desirable protection relevant to the project that is not found in the GPL version 2.
supposed to be backwards compatible(?) Posted Nov 23, 2004 16:23 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] Well, if some code is "GPL 2 (only)" and some other code is "GPL 3 or later", there's no way to merge the two bodies of code.
One way around that might be a grandfather clause in GPL 3, something like "as a special exception, this code may be licensed under GPL 2 (or later) when necessary to do so by virtue of incorporating third-party code that was copyright prior to (date of GPL 3 release) and licensed only under a specific version of the GPL."
The "copyright prior to (date of GPL 3 release)" is to avoid somebody trying to circumvent GPL 3 by writing new code and licensing it under GPL 2 only, then incorporating it. The bit about "third-party code" helps there too, since your own code you could obviously relicense from 2 to 3.
-- Alastair
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 6:47 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] How many projects license under "GPL 2 only" rather than "GPL version 2 or a later version"? The highest profile "GPL 2 only" project I can think of is the Linux kernel, but most software I've seen uses the "or a later version" text.
Usually when someone GPLs some code, they'd take the sample license header from the GPL itself. They'd need to modify that header to use "GPL 2 only".
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 11:49 UTC (Tue) by sean.hunter (subscriber, #7920) [Link] IIRC glibc is also licensed as explicitly version 2 and not "or later"
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 11:56 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] That would be a trick, since (looking at the current Debian copyright file) none of the 7 licenses of the code that makes up glibc is the GNU GPL.
Please don't post misinformation Posted Nov 23, 2004 17:50 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] First off, glibc isn't GPL at all; it is LGPL. Second, the license blurbs on the header specify version 2.1 of the LGPL or any later version.This is the kind of thing that's easily checked, so please check next time before posting.
Please don't post misinformation Posted Nov 24, 2004 14:26 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Even if glibc had been LGPLv2.1, this would have been little problem: the license assignments would permit the FSF to vary the license to `... or any later version' regardless. (As you know.)
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 24, 2004 2:08 UTC (Wed) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] How many projects license under "GPL 2 only" rather than "GPL version 2 or a later version"? The highest profile "GPL 2 only" project I can think of is the Linux kernel.Hold it there, the Linux kernel is _not_ GPL 2 only, it is a mixture of licenses including various flavors of GPL, BSD and probably other things. grep "\"GPL\"" * -r | wc -l 2108 grep "\"GPL v2\"" * -r | wc -l 11
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 24, 2004 14:49 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] With that combination of licenses, it seems that the only license you could distribute Linux as a whole under is the GPL version 2.
If the kernel developers wanted to use GPLv3, they would still need to track down contributors for permission (although they would only need to do so for sections of the code that didn't already give permission to use later versions of the GPL).
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 26, 2004 12:54 UTC (Fri) by vgough (subscriber, #2781) [Link] Huh?
As long as you are following the terms of the various licenses, then I see no point in pretending that you are distributing under only one license. There is no reason why you cannot satisfy multiply licenses simultaniously unless the licenses have conflicting requirements.
So, if I distribute the Linux kernel, and give the source code along with it -- I am simultaniously adhering to the the various licenses that make up the Linux kernel. If I wanted to distribute it in a way that was allowed under BSD but not under GPL v2, then I could chop out all the GPL parts and only distribute the BSD licensed sections (although I doubt it would actually compile or run at that point)..
Or if, in the future, people contributed code to the kernel under GPL v3, then I could also choose not to distribute those parts -- if I didn't agree to the provisions of the GPL v3.
You've made two assumptions that I think do not hold:
1. that the whole work must be licensed under a single license. But as other's have pointed out here, different parts of the kernel have different licenses.
2. that the only way to use GPL v3 code is to convert old GPL v2 licensed code (thus requiring permission from all the authors). This ties into #1 -- people will likely contribute new code licensed under GPL v3. Then distributors will either have to honor that license, or not distribute those pieces.
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 27, 2004 4:31 UTC (Sat) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] I think the assumptions I made are valid.
If you want to distribute the combined work of the kernel contributors, you'll need to obey the licenses of all the various bits. The GPLv2 states that you can't impose additional restrictions not included in the license, so there is an upper limit to the restrictions you can apply. Furthermore, you are going to have to obey the GPLv2 since some of the code says you can only distribute it under those terms.
Given these constraints, what license other than GPLv2 could you distribute the whole? (of course, you may be able to separate out a component and distribute it under different terms). The "mere aggregation" clause of the GPLv2 doesn't apply here, due to the fact that all the code gets distributed and linked together.
To address your second point, in order to include the some GPLv3 code in the kernel, you'd need to make sure it was compatible with the other licenses in use. It would clearly be compatible with code licensed as "GPLv2 or later", but would likely be incompatible with GPLv2 only code (I don't see how they'd be able to implement some of the ideas for GPLv3 without adding new restrictions). So to integrate GPLv3 code, you'd need permission from all the copyright holders who haven't already given their permission by licensing under "GPLv2 or later".
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 5:57 UTC (Tue) by sandymac (guest, #22424) [Link] Anyone know if efforts will be made to fix the language of the LGPL too? See: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/ Using_20LGPL_27d_20code
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 12:06 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] This is a choice Apache made for unknown reasons. The page you linked to cites anonymous "legal advice" and Larry Rosen, neither of which is particularly trustworthy.
The FSF (via Eben Moglen and Dave Turner, who is licensing@gnu.org), Debian, and most other organizations are on the record as saying the LGPL is not viral when applied to Java. Some people got this opinion when Dave Turner answered a question and the querent somehow reached the exact opposite conclusion of what he said.
Based on what Dave says at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/07/msg00234.html (and many, many other sites) I am surprised that page is still around. Please don't spread FUD, and please don't give publicity to the ASF's FUD -- until they identify "legal advice" or identify real problems with the LGPL, they are doing just that.
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 14:54 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] According to:
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>>
they've been talking to the FSF. The point being that the FSF is the one that says that the Apache 2.0 license is not compatible with the GPL - the issue seems to revolve around the patent terms in the Apache license.
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 16:36 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] You might want to read that again. The grand parent is talking about the LGPL, not the GPL. As to Apache 2 and GPL, if you read the FSFs official view it suggests that they regard this particular incompatibility as a bug that might get fixed in GPL v3.
Where is it? Posted Nov 23, 2004 13:42 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] The article does not show a draft or something else that could be construed as the concrete objectives of the new license.
Where is it? Posted Nov 24, 2004 12:55 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] We are only likely to see a draft when it becomes clear which of the potentially competing "nice to have" features are compatible, and if not, which take higher priority, in the mind of the person or group creating the draft. I think this one is at the brainstorm stage - time to throw in as many ideas into the pot as possible so that the key ingredients can emerge from collective discussion. I guess the FSF are likely to be creating a discussion forum for ideas to be thrown around in. Once consensus emerges as to what can feasibly be included the debate will move on to the how questions, rather than the what questions.
GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents (eWeek) Posted Nov 23, 2004 13:43 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " "But if we don't use our leverage correctly, we could wind up in a world where free software is injured very badly, where you can modify code but you cannot do anything with that modified code because the hardware will not run that code because it cannot be signed 'Microsoft or IBM,'" he said. "If that happens, free software will be excluded from hardware, and that is not an outcome we can tolerate." "
MUCH more worst than patents (or at least equally as bad), is how can this be adressed if not by making the hardware industry to jump into the Open Source bandwagon ??
The issue of Open Sourced device drivers OR NOT!!. Where lines can be crossed so that hardware industry can stay firm in the Open Source ground, without conflicting with other projects ??
Once again a clearly *split driver model* comes to mind, not only for Linux but for all Open Source world from Linux to the BSDs to OpenDarwin...
The issue of userland or kernel space drivers can be adressed with separated trees, based on the same building blocks STANDARDS, for the different kernel projects, and OSDL is the perfect place to lodge them...
There are inumerous adventages to a split driver model, perhaps more to the open source world where the necessity of clearly separate a real stable tree and the necessity of having all the source for development, debbugging, and new indispensable features, sometimes colide with eachother.
* This can be a clearly TECHNICAL problem, not necessarly a POLITICAL one *
Should everybody re-license to use GPL 3? Posted Nov 23, 2004 16:27 UTC (Tue) by sto (subscriber, #2646) [Link] The GPL v2 recommends to put a notice on source files that includes the following fragment: 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 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Is this really valid in legal terms? I mean, can somebody redistribute the code using GPL 3 without the original Author or Authors' permission? Last Thursday I went to a round table with Advocates and they talked about something similar, saying that a contract can't be enforced when it applies to things that don't exist at the time of the contract signature (in this case they were talking about redistribution on DVD of old newspaper articles without asking for permission to the original authors because the original journalist contracts said that: "all the author's articles are redistributable by us in all current and future formats").
Should everybody re-license to use GPL 3? Posted Nov 23, 2004 16:33 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] "Is this really valid in legal terms? I mean, can somebody redistribute the code using GPL 3 without the original Author or Authors' permission?" If you put "or (at your option) any later version" into the copyright notice, you gave that permission.
Should everybody re-license to use GPL 3? Posted Nov 23, 2004 20:18 UTC (Tue) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] Also note that the GPL actually talks about newer versions in clause 9 with much more detail:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
Should everybody re-license to use GPL 3? Posted Nov 23, 2004 16:39 UTC (Tue) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] I think that a court would look at intent, and the intent of "or (at your option) any later version" is pretty clear. Putting such a declaration is a statement of trust in the writers of any future versions of the GPL. Some people, having seen what's happened with the GFDL, no longer use the "any later version" clause.
Should everybody re-license to use GPL 3? Posted Nov 23, 2004 17:54 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I suggest that anyone who's avoided the "any later version" clause because of lack of trust, be sure to take measures to make it possible to switch to GPL v3 if you decide later that it is what you want. If you leave the ownership of your program in the hands of hundreds of copyright owners, a few dozen of whom can't be contacted, you have a major problem if some court finds a serious problem with GPL v2, GPL v3 fixes the issue, but you can't change the copyright of your program without taking out major chunks.That said, I don't blame people for being cautious.
|
|||||||||||