GPLv3 is out [LWN.net]

GPLv3 is out

Posted Jun 30, 2007 13:37 UTC (Sat) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366)
Parent article: GPLv3 is out

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).

(Log in to post comments)

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]

It's not so clear-cut as you are saying. There are two different ways "linking clause" can be used:
1. To force plugin for GPL-program to become GPL
2. To forbid distribution of "derived work" which contains both plugin and GPLed work.

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*.