Last call for GPLv3 [LWN.net]

The Free Software Foundation has announced the release of the "last call" draft of version 3 of the GNU General Public License. In the absence of a significant reason to make changes, the FSF will be releasing something that looks very much like this draft on June 29. So this would be a good time for anybody who is concerned about this license to take a final look at the license text with an eye toward finding any last-minute problems.

There are a few significant changes that went in this time around, and one which did not. The current draft contains this language:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

The final part is the "grandfather clause" which exempts the Microsoft/Novell deal from this restriction. In the previous draft, the FSF had mentioned the possibility of removing that clause, causing the full power of that language to apply against Novell. That, in turn, would have made it hard (or impossible) for Novell to distribute software licensed under GPLv3. According to the FSF, it now seems that it is better to let Novell distribute this software than to prohibit it:

Microsoft is scrambling to dispose of as many Novell SLES coupons as possible prior to the adoption of GPLv3. Unfortunately for Microsoft, those coupons bear no expiration date, and paragraph 6 has no cut-off date. Through its ongoing distribution of coupons, Microsoft will have procured the distribution of GPLv3-covered programs as soon as they are included in Novell SLES distributions, thereby extending patent defenses to all downstream recipients of that software by operation of paragraph 6.

If this reasoning holds up, any Microsoft patent which can be said to be infringed by GPLv3-licensed software distributed by Novell will, in essence, be licensed to the free software community. It seems too good to be true, but the people who are arguing this point should know what they are talking about.

The definition of a "user product" - the sort of product to which the anti-DRM provisions apply - has changed somewhat. The previous draft used a reference to a U.S. law, which was not entirely well received in other parts of the world. The new draft says, instead:

A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product," which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.

The clear intent is to define most products as "user products," exempting only a very few products from the requirement that "installation instructions" be provided with the source. This requirement has always been one of the most controversial parts of GPLv3, but the FSF has stuck with it from the beginning.

The permissions for distributing copies have been broadened a little with this language:

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not hold copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

In other words, having an outside contractor work on a modified, GPLv3-licensed program does not force the distribution of the modifications to that program.

Finally, this draft of the GPLv3 is considered to be fully compatible with version 2 of the Apache License. This compatibility was achieved by changing the interpretation of the Apache License slightly (in a way which matches the Apache Software Foundation's interpretation) and by adding a couple of permissible extra terms to the GPL. It is now possible to require indemnification of upstream contributors and to require modified works to be distributed under a different name. Since the Apache License contains terms like that, allowing them under GPLv3 was essential if the two were to be made compatible with each other.

The screaming which accompanied earlier drafts of GPLv3 is notably absent this time around. A number of the issues which upset people have been resolved at this point. And most observers understand that other controversial terms - such as the anti-DRM provisions - are not going to change regardless of how much criticism is directed at them. For better or for worse, the GPLv3 process is nearly complete; soon it will be a matter of seeing which projects make the change to the new license. To that end, Richard Stallman has posted an essay encouraging movement to GPLv3. Starting on June 29, projects will have the option of following that advice.

(Log in to post comments)