Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
GPLv3 is out
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA -- Friday, June 29, 2007 -- The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today released version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the world's most popular free software license. "Since we founded the free software movement, over 23 years ago, the free software community has developed thousands of useful programs that respect the user's freedom. The programs are in the GNU/Linux operating system, as well as personal computers, telephones, Internet servers, and more. Most of these programs use the GNU GPL to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the program," said Richard Stallman, founder and president of the FSF. Version 3 of the GNU GPL strengthens this guarantee, by ensuring that users can modify the free software on their personal and household devices, and granting patent licenses to every user. It also extends compatibility with other free software licenses and increases international uniformity. Jeremy Allison, speaking on behalf of the Samba team, states that they see the new license as "a great improvement on the older GPL," and that it is "a necessary update to deal with the new threats to free software that have emerged since version 2 of the GPL." The warm embrace of much of the community should come as no surprise, for the license is the final result of an unprecedented drafting process that has seen four published drafts in eighteen months. These were the basis for a discussion that included thousands of comments from the public. This feedback, along with input from committees representing the public and private sectors, and legal advice from the Software Freedom Law Center, was used in writing the text of GPL version 3. "By hearing from so many different groups in a public drafting process, we have been able to write a license that successfully addresses a broad spectrum of concerns. But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing," said the Foundation's executive director, Peter Brown. Tivoization and Treacherous (aka, "Trusted") Computing are schemes to prevent users from utilizing modified or alternate software. The former simply blocks modified software from running; the latter enables web sites to refuse to talk to modified software. Both are typically used to impose malicious features such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). GPL version 3 does not restrict the features of a program; in particular, it does not prohibit DRM. However, it prohibits the use of tivoization and Treacherous Computing to stop users from changing the software. Thus, they are free to remove whatever features they may dislike. Karl Berry, long-time GNU developer and Texinfo maintainer, believes that "the GPL is the fundamental license that ties the free software community together, and version 3 does an excellent job of updating the license to the present-day computing reality." Elated by the new patent clause, he bemoans software patents as "a scourge on our cooperative efforts." Over fifteen GNU programs will be released under the new license today, and the entire GNU Project will follow suit in the coming months. The FSF will also encourage adoption of the license through education and outreach programs. "A lot of time and effort went into this license. Now free programs must adopt it so as to offer their users its stronger protection for their freedom," Stallman said. The final license is published at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. About the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) The GNU GPL is the most widely used free software license worldwide: almost three quarters of all free software packages are distributed under this license. It is not, however, the only free software license. Richard Stallman wrote the version 1 and 2 of the GNU GPL with legal advice from Perkins, Smith & Cohen. Version 1 was released in 1989, and version 2 in 1991. Since 1991, free software use has increased tremendously, and computing practices have changed, introducing new opportunities and new threats. In 2005, Stallman began revising the GPL for version 3. In January 2006, the FSF began a systematic process of public review and feedback, with legal advice and organizational support from the Software Freedom Law Center. About the GNU Operating System and Linux Richard Stallman announced in September 1983 the plan to develop a free software Unix-like operating system called GNU. GNU is the only operating system developed specifically for the sake of users' freedom. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html. In 1992, the essential components of GNU were complete, except for one, the kernel. When in 1992 the kernel Linux was re-released under the GNU GPL, making it free software, the combination of GNU and Linux formed a complete free operating system, which made it possible for the first time to run a PC without non-free software. This combination is the GNU/Linux system. For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html. The GNU components in the GNU system will be released under GPL version 3, once it is finalized. The licensing of Linux will be decided by the developers of Linux. If they decide to stay with GPL version 2, then the GNU/Linux system will contain GNU packages using GNU GPL version 3, alongside Linux under GNU GPL version 2. Many other packages with various licenses make up the full GNU/Linux system. About Free Software and Open Source The free software movement's goal is freedom for computer users. Some, especially corporations, advocate a different viewpoint, known as "open source," which cites only practical goals such as making software powerful and reliable, focuses on development models, and avoids discussion of ethics and freedom. These two viewpoints are different at the deepest level. For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-poin... The GNU GPL is used by developers with various views, but it was written to serve the ethical goals of the free software movement. Says Stallman, "The GNU GPL makes sense in terms of its purpose: freedom and social solidarity. Trying to understand it in terms of the goals and values of open source is like trying understand a CD drive's retractable drawer as a cupholder. You can use it for that, but that is not what it was designed for." About The Free Software Foundation The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software -- particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants -- and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software. Its web site, located at www.fsf.org, is an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Its headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA. Media contacts: Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation 617-542-5942x18 brett@fsf.org John Sullivan Campaigns Manager Free Software Foundation 617-542-5942×23 johns@fsf.org Joshua Gay Campaigns Manager Free Software Foundation 617-542-5942×19 jgay@fsf.org ### _______________________________________________ Info-gplv3 mailing list Info-gplv3@gplv3.fsf.org http://gplv3.fsf.org (Log in to post comments)
Reposting Posted Jun 29, 2007 19:10 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Before anybody asks: yes, this is a reposting. I made a mistake the first time and put up a version which did not allow comment posting. I blame all the people trying to talk to me in the OLS hallway...sorry for the confusion.
Thank you! Posted Jun 29, 2007 19:17 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] Thank you FSF for all of your hard work in producing the GPL version 3 (and the LGPL 3 too)! Today is a great day for Free Software.
I'm already updating all of my GPL'd and LGPL'd Free Software projects to the new license :-)
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 29, 2007 20:20 UTC (Fri) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] Congratulations, FSF!
first package with v3 is out Posted Jun 29, 2007 21:26 UTC (Fri) by xose (guest, #535) [Link] and the winner is latest tar-1.18, released today(2007-06-29).I am sure more is comming.
first package with v3 is out Posted Jun 29, 2007 22:05 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] since it's usually necessary to use tar to unpack many other packages, it's kind of amusingly appropriate... [chuckle]
first package with v3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 11:53 UTC (Sat) by BeS (subscriber, #43108) [Link] The press release says: "Over fifteen GNU programs will be released under the new license today". Is their any list or something where we can keep track about the projects switching to GPLv3 (maybe at least for the GNU projects). I think this would be quite interesting to follow the adoption of the GPLv3 on a central place.
first package with v3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 17:07 UTC (Sat) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] I released some Free Software yesterday ( http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/wiki/News ), but unfortunately I couldn't use GPLv3, because it contains language that might confuse people about our intent with regard to the transitivity of a "grace period" during which one is allowed to distribute proprietary derived works.
Specifically, while the GPLv3 makes it easy for us to express: "You may use this software under the GPLv3, with the added permission that if you are obligated to release the source code of a derived work you may delay the fulfillment of that obligation for up to 12 months.", it makes it hard for us to express: "... and you are obligated to extend this same 'grace period' permission to everyone to whom you distribute your derived work".
This is a deliberate design decision on the part of the drafters of the GPLv3 -- they wanted the transitive obligations on the third party to be (at the option of the second party) just the provisions of the GPL. (I refer to section 7.)
I understand why they did that, but I don't want to release Allmydata's source code under a licence in which the second party can omit the grace period on their extensions and release their extensions under pure GPL.
For those interested in the details, this issue hinges on whether the grace period hack is an "additional permission" (re: secton 7) and whether the clause that you are not allowed to remove the grace period hack is an "additional restriction". It's kind of a funny philosophical issue as to whether an addition restriction which consists solely of forbidding you from removing an addition permission is a "restriction". This funny philosophical issue is, of course, the funny philosophical issue of the GPL itself. :-)
Regards,
Zooko
first package with v3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 18:10 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] For those interested in the details, this issue hinges on whether the grace period hack is an "additional permission" (re: secton 7) and whether the clause that you are not allowed to remove the grace period hack is an "additional restriction". It's kind of a funny philosophical issue as to whether an addition restriction which consists solely of forbidding you from removing an addition permission is a "restriction". It can be funny philosophical issue, but it's very clear practical issue: if the thing can not be done with stock license, but can be done with "license+clause" - it's additional permission, if the thing can be done with stock license, but not with "license+clause" - it's additional restriction. This funny philosophical issue is, of course, the funny philosophical issue of the GPL itself. :-) Not really. If I'll give the permission to postpone "fullfillment of obligation" for 1'000'000 years and forbid you to remove this permission then for all practical purposes I've got the BSD license. You can modify GPLv3 license but then you'll get separate, GPL-incompatible license - and that's good: we don't need a tool to convert GPL-licensed code to BSD-licensed code, do we ?
variants of the GPL Posted Jun 30, 2007 18:44 UTC (Sat) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] I'm afraid I may have confused you by saying this is "the" funny philosophical issue of the GPL itself. I guess there are multiple interesting issues of the GPL itself, but the one I meant was that the GPL imposes restrictions in order to cause a broader proliferation of permissions. (Quite successfully, I might add.)
I'm not sure I quite understand your point in the last sentence. As far as I know you <em>cannot</em> modify GPLv3 (see the copyright statement at the top of the GPLv3), except by adding clauses, the transitive imposition of which is determined by the stock GPLv3 itself.
I certainly hope you don't think that my grace period hack is a tool to convert GPL-licensed code to BSD-licensed code. It certainly is not -- indeed it is intended to have the opposite effect: to impose a restriction in order to cause a broader proliferation of GPL-licensed code.
Oh, I think I understand what you meant. If the GPLv3 had not constrained the transitivity of additional clauses, then it would be possible for there to be additional clauses which effectively just rendered the GPLv3 functionally equivalent to a permissive licence. I agree that there isn't any value in having a variant of the GPLv3 which acts the same as a permissive licence, and I approve of the way the GPLv3 tries to prevent licence fragmentation.
(Note, however, that even if there were such a clause -- one which effectively said "This code is licensed under the GPLv3 with the added clause that you can do everything as though it were licensed under the BSD licence." -- that this would not, of course, have any effect on already GPLv3-licensed source code. Therefore, there is simply no possibility of a tool which converts GPL-licensed code to BSD-licensed code, even if the GPLv3 didn't have transitive-permission-dropping and transitive-restriction-dropping.)
Regards,
Zooko
variants of the GPL Posted Jul 2, 2007 6:41 UTC (Mon) by sitaram (subscriber, #5959) [Link] you guys keep saying "transitivity". Do you mean "automatic transferability"? Strictly speaking, transitivity does not apply here.
variants of the GPL Posted Jul 2, 2007 16:42 UTC (Mon) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] I guess there is a specific meaning of "transitivity" that you are using. Care to enlighten us?
When I said "transitivity", I meant "whether something is required to be applied to derivative works". In the message to which you were replying, I was discussing the fact that the GPLv3 prevents a first party from adding a clause when granting a licence to a second party, which clause the second party is obligated to apply to a third party, should the second party redistribute the work or a derived work to a third party. This means that we can't use GPLv3 and add a mandatory transitive clause to it -- the second party can always choose to remove that clause.
Regards,
Zooko
variants of the GPL Posted Jul 6, 2007 0:41 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] > the GPL imposes restrictions in order to cause a broader proliferation of permissions.
No, it doesn't. Under basic copyright law, redistribution is not permitted at all. Period. That's about as restricted as it's possible to get! Therefore the GPL doesn't *impose* restrictions, it *relaxes* them.
So does the BSD, or placing a work in the public domain. The difference is that the BSD relaxes the restrictions of copyright law almost unconditionally, whereas the GPL only relaxes them conditionally - the condition being that none of the restrictions it relaxes may be reimposed.
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 29, 2007 21:54 UTC (Fri) by oska (guest, #25556) [Link] Congratulation to the FSF for the successful resolution of their license redrafting and community consultation project.
Thank you to all those developers who release or re-release their software under this license thus promoting the freedom of the users of their software.
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 29, 2007 22:00 UTC (Fri) by h2 (guest, #27965) [Link] Congratulations to the FSF GPL 3 team and process. They proved it can be done, they were not rigid, they listened, they compromised.
Great news, and great to have this improved protection for both real, human, end users, and the hackers who create the code in the first place. I hope the FSF never stops its efforts to make the Free software community able to survive the challenges it faces every day.
Impressive process Posted Jun 29, 2007 22:09 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] I was particularly impressed by the GPLv3 process. They managed to get a vast number of viewpoints, and compromise in sensible ways. Not everyone will be happy with their results, but I think they ended up with a reasonable (and reasoned) endpoint given their goals. I intend to relicense some software using GPLv3.
Impressive process Posted Jun 29, 2007 23:17 UTC (Fri) by xuxa (guest, #29601) [Link] I whole-heartedly agree. It appeared to me that the FSF did a very good job of listening closely to the input of others and managing a remarkably wide range of opinions. It didn't seem like any class of Free Software users was excluded from the process.
I got the feeling that those involved at the core of the process pushed themselves to be open to change and to be ready to recognize the value of others' ideas, even when they conflicted with the current draft. There must be some contributors who felt the FSF sided against them in particular matters, but I felt the FSF maintained the ideals of Free Software while incorporating input from a range of contributors across the pragmatic and philosophical spectrum of the movement.
And thanks to Eben for providing such clear explanations and well-spoken inspiration!
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 0:34 UTC (Sat) by sprink (guest, #45735) [Link] Thank you FSF for another great license.
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 13:37 UTC (Sat) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] GPLv3 mentions the Affero General Public License.. apparently there's a GPL variant that says that you must supply source if you run the program. This is interesting.
Pretty much, a GPL'd Web server (say, if Apache was GPLv3) allows the server operator to modify it and put it into use without distributing the proprietary changes. The GNU Affero General Public License, on the other hand, forces the server operator to distribute the code to those in the public who access the server, i.e. those who visit the Web site. The GPLv3 references this license in Clause 13, specifically stating that you can use both on a single software project.
I just found that interesting. It seems to have no other purpose than to get the GAGPL some attention, but eh. The GAGPL is a scarier license than the GPL even; though, the GPLv3 looks nice, and I'd probably go for an LGPLv3 that didn't have the nasty linking clause (which, btw, I use for entertainment by structuring logical arguments to topple it over in court and force the GPL to become the LGPL).
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 15:46 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] > It seems to have no other purpose than to get the GAGPL some attention, but eh.
The exception has to be there if you want GPLv3'd software to be compatable with Affero software. Obligating people provide source code downloads is a added restriction to the license. The GPLv3 does not normally allow that. If there wasn't this clause then GPL'd source code couldn't be used in a Affero'd application.
That's why it's there.
> The GAGPL is a scarier license than the GPL even
If the GPL scares you then your not realy 'getting' the whole 'open source' thing... You know; the whole idea of allowing people access to the source code and giving them the ability to redistribute it and such things.
> which, btw, I use for entertainment by structuring logical arguments to topple it over in court and force the GPL to become the LGPL
You can't force the GPL to become LGPL in any way shape or form, even if you were otherwise 100% right. If the GPL is invalid as it is then the rights granted to you to use other people's software are invalid also.
In other words. Without the GPL then you generally have no rights to use the software. If you 'defeat' the GPL in court it would only force you to find new terms and conditions with the original copyright holders. (good luck on that one)
GPLv3 is out Posted Jun 30, 2007 18:23 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You can't force the GPL to become LGPL in any way shape or form, even if you were otherwise 100% right. If the GPL is invalid as it is then the rights granted to you to use other people's software are invalid also. It's not so clear-cut as you are saying. There are two different ways "linking clause" can be used: I'm pretty sure 1st usage can well be overthrown in court: why do you need a license to distribute something (GPL or some other) if you are not distributing it ? See: NVidia drivers... As for 2nd... no way is hell: it does not even need any technical details. If Joe hates Katie (they had shady past) and gives you permission to publish novel in any book when Katie's works are not included - you must complain. Even if it looks illogical and stupid. GPL does exactly this: if you combine plugin and program to create derived work - you must apply GPL terms to both or to neither... The only hope is "mere aggregation" clause and even if "mere aggregation" clause will be somehow extended to plugins (which are clearly intended to be only used with main program - so hard to imagine) then it'll just force GPLv4 early...
GPLv3 is out Posted Jul 1, 2007 4:25 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] The only dispute that I know about is what is and what is not 'derived work'.
This is a legal construct that can only realy be determined by a judge. 'Derived Work' is in the actual language of the copyright law itself and it pre-existed long before GPL came out.
This is my understanding of it.
For example you have the proprietary kernel modules. Some lawyers will tell you that some of them are, in fact, derived work while others are not. So some modules will violate the GPL and others won't. Other lawyers will tell you that ALL of them are derived from the kernel and all of them probably violate the GPL.
So this is the so-called gray area. Weither or not Nvidia or ATI or whoever is violating the GPL is realy up to a judge. (if it ever gets to the point were somebody decides to sue for copyright infringement.) This is one of those things were law is very different from software: Some things are kept intentionally gray. It makes law work better sometimes, but it is confusing.
But having 'derived work' clauses in licenses are a very valid thing to do. The results are probably a bit unpredictable sometimes though...
But if you have some 'plugins' that are not derived work it still doesn't make the GPL the same as LGPL.
IANAL, by the by. Just my personal understanding.
GPLv3 is out Posted Jul 3, 2007 23:49 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" 'Derived Work' is in the actual language of the copyright law... For example you have the proprietary kernel modules. Some lawyers will tell you that some of them are, in fact, derived work while others are not... So this is the so-called gray area. Weither or not Nvidia or ATI or whoever is violating the GPL is realy up to a judge. ""
Yes i agree. But it is specially in this 'driver issue' that some technical provisions can make the whole matter more clear.
Example:
. Use an 'hardened' DKMS to provide linking to some parts of the kernel allowing that linking, to the extend recognizable that the modules or plugins therefore are mostly independent BLOBs, because the interface is hardened and the 'maneuvering' space is therefore limited.
-_ a) It will permit proprietary modules like exist today.
-_ b) It will not allow proprietary modules to change indiscriminatory parts of the kernel as it is possible today.
-_ c) It will 'make more compiling' for hardware vendors serious about Linux support to engage in kernel development, specially in those parts that they know/feel are deficient. Instead of outsiders they will became part of the community.
-_ d) None of this invalidate NDAs, only restricts its applicability, because if a vendor making a driver decides that it must change a whole lot of kernel code, it dosent create more gray areas and instead gains more developers.
-_ e) It will not be only about license, but a very 'wit' technical approach, because recognizably parts of a driver are much more dependent of the underlaying hardware than of the kernel environment, and can be therefore used as base for other OSes drivers.
-_ f) It can make the Linux kernel the ' platform of excellence ' for driver development.
. Every other module goes ' in the usual way ' and are therefore a recognizably *derived work*.
GPLv2 forks of GPLv3 projects? Posted Jun 30, 2007 18:22 UTC (Sat) by smcdow (subscriber, #6854) [Link] I admit to not having read the new license, but I'm wondering if there's anything preventing anyone from taking a GPLv3 package, copying it, renaming it, slapping a GPLv2 license on it, and then releasing same?
Seems like a much easier way to deal with GPLv3 licensing issues than going to court. Could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
GPLv2 forks of GPLv3 projects? Posted Jun 30, 2007 18:36 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I admit to not having read the new license, but I'm wondering if there's anything preventing anyone from taking a GPLv3 package, copying it, renaming it, slapping a GPLv2 license on it, and then releasing same? No, there are nothing. And there are no need to include anything like this. There are such thing (not included in GPLv3) called copyright. It says: to change terms of license (and if you'll replace GPLv3 with GPLv2 you'll be changing terms of license grant for sure) you need explicit permission from copyright holder. GPLv3 does not have such permission => end of story. Note: you can not even replace "GPLv2 and later" grant in package which uses GPLv2 today without explicit permission from copyright holder! But you can CHANGE parts of this package and slap "GPLv3 or later" on these changes (this will effectively force the whole package to become GPLv3, but if someone will manage to remove your changes - they'll be free to use GPLv2 again).
GPLv2 forks of GPLv3 projects? Posted Jul 2, 2007 13:54 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Forks are possible, but they would need to start with the latest version released under GPLv2.
GPLv2 forks of GPLv3 projects? Posted Jul 4, 2007 16:58 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] You can start with the latest version released under GPL 2 or 2 and later and keep it that way, but you can't merge any changes that are GPL 3 only or 3 and later into your GPL 2 fork. How long you can maintain your fork will depend upon whether your development budget (time and money) goes further than that of the set of developers of the GPL3 fork. Realistically I think that most projects will follow the views of the lead developer/s.
GPLv3 is out Posted Jul 1, 2007 17:11 UTC (Sun) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] i wonder if GPLv3 will ever be listed at opensource.org as a OSI approved "Open Source license". As far as i understand the OSI only review licenses when the author submit them and i'm not sure if the FSF will do this...
GPLv3 has been submitted to OSI Posted Jul 2, 2007 1:47 UTC (Mon) by esr (guest, #14345) [Link] GPLv3 has indeed been submitted to OSI and will be put through our normal approval process. I do not know of any blocking issues against approval.
|
|||||||||||||