| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?Posted Apr 25, 2005 21:45 UTC (Mon) by xav (subscriber, #18536)Parent article: Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote
Could someone sched some light on what's flawed in the current incarnation of the GPL, and why do we (the people ;) need a new version ? I sure like the GPL v2, and would need a really good reason to switch to v3.
(Log in to post comments)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 25, 2005 21:53 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] One reason that's been bandied about is that it is increasingly common for software to be used as a web-based service, where instead of distributing the software, you set up a web site where people submit input to the software and get the output. Some such services are paid; some are at no charge. The issue is that many developers of GPL'd software don't want other people to take their software, make some enhancements to it, offer it only as a service, and not distribute the modified source code. With GPLv2, the requirement to redistribute the source code of a modified version is only triggered if you distribute the object code of that version. Essentially this allows the provider of such a service to make a proprietary non-free (as in speech) version of the software.I'm sure there are other issues that the GPLv3 is intended to address as well; I think at least some of them have been discussed in prior articles here on LWN. The web service issue may not even be the most important of them, but it's the one I happen to remember.
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 26, 2005 6:56 UTC (Tue) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] You mean like google?
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 26, 2005 11:25 UTC (Tue) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Very good example.
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 27, 2005 1:55 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Not to mention LWN :-)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 27, 2005 9:34 UTC (Wed) by jonth (subscriber, #4008) [Link] Is that true? Jonathan, is there a reason why the source for this site is not released under the GPL?
(Possibly no-one's ever asked for it!)
Releasing the code Posted Apr 27, 2005 13:14 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] The site source has not been released for the simple reason that we have not had the time to do it. One of the things we'd have to do is examine the various external components we use (there's a few of them) and figure out which licence is compatible with them all; until then, I don't know which license we would use. We also need to do a security pass, set up distribution, mailing lists, etc. It remains on the list, with a reasonably high priority even.But the list is full of high-priority tasks, starting with "get LWN out every week."
Releasing the code Posted Apr 29, 2005 0:57 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > But the list is full of high-priority tasks, starting with> "get LWN out every week." Which is as it should be, and worth every penny it is too.
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 28, 2005 3:53 UTC (Thu) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link] I don't believe so, I think he meant like SOAP web services where you areeffectively coding against an API, even though it's an RPC call. Of course, I could be wrong. Anyway, it was a very excellent presentation by Eben, I count myself very lucky to have been there to hear it. Chris
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 25, 2005 22:02 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] See these previous interviews with Eben Moglen: 2 Feb 2005 and 22 Nov 2004.Short summary: the GPL v3 is expected to be very similar to v2, but to have some tweaks to make it more international and translatable, will have more explicit defenses against patent litigation, will describe how the license interacts with "trusted computing", and will possibly include as an option some provision for software that is used over a network (perhaps similar to the Affero General Public License, which was written in consultation with the FSF).
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 26, 2005 11:45 UTC (Tue) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] I, for one, welcome our FSF overlords.
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 26, 2005 2:21 UTC (Tue) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] Another point that was hinted at but not directly addressed in the previous responses: the new Apache license (and some similar licenses) have some restrictions on patent abuse. These restrictions are not compatible with the GPL v2, but are considered by the FSF (and many others) to be perfectly reasonable and even desirable otherwise. So, basically, the plan at this point is to modify the GPL to be fully compatible with the Apache license, rather than try to force the Apache Foundation to remove desirable features from their license. (The current situation, where the Apache license and the GPL are incompatible is livable, but not ideal.)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 26, 2005 14:01 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Now *THAT* has to be a first. The GPL chaging to accomodate *OTHER* licenses.
Will wonders never cease? ;-)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 27, 2005 3:31 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] It isn't the first time they've made changes when the GPL's terms had unforseen/undesirable consequences. For example, the GPL v1 meant that you couldn't put a copy of a GPL program (with source) and a proprietary program onto a single CD and distribute it. The GPL was changed to allow "mere aggregation" in version 2 to allow it.
If the FSF thinks that some form of patent defense is a good thing in a license and the GPL causes problems due to its incompatibility with such terms, why do you think they wouldn't change?
|
|
||||||||||||