GPLv3 to launch on Friday

The Free Software Foundation have announced that version 3 of the GPL will be officially launched on Friday. Here is the announcement.

On Friday, June 29, at 12 noon (EDT), the Free Software Foundation will officially release the GNU GPL version 3. Please join us in celebration as we bring to a close eighteen months of public outreach and comment, in revision of the world’s most popular free software license.

Beyond the creation of an improved license, the process of drafting version 3 has helped highlight vital issues for the community of free software users. This is a moment to thank the thousands who participated by commenting on the license, and those that represented stakeholders through the GPLv3 committee process.

Now with the release of GPLv3, we will see new defenses extended to free software. These defenses will continue the long history of fighting all efforts to make free software proprietary.

Please join us as we stream live footage of Richard Stallman announcing GPLv3 from Noon (EDT) at www.fsf.org.

If you are in the Boston area you can also join us at the FSF offices from 11:30am. Please let us know at <info@fsf.org> if you would like to attend.

Affero General Public License

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has released the first discussion draft of the GNU Affero General Public License (GNU AGPL). This new license is based on version 3 of the GNU GPL. It has a new term to ensure that users who interact with the software over a network can receive the source for that program.

The original Affero GPL was intended to guarantee that everyone could receive the source for web applications that they used, so the software could always be shared and improved. The corresponding provision in the GNU AGPL applies this same principle to all software that interacts with users through a network, but doesn’t impose additional requirements when the same code is used for other purposes. Since the GNU AGPL is based on version 3 of the GNU GPL, it will also provide improved internationalization, compatibility with the Apache License, and other
benefits.

As with its other licenses, the FSF will hear feedback on the draft from the public before releasing the final version of the license. The additional provision is in the first paragraph of section 13. We ask that comments not specific to the GNU AGPL be submitted to the latest draft of GPLv3. You can learn more about this draft on the GPLv3 portal at <http://gplv3.fsf.org/agplv3-dd1-guide.html>.

GPLv3 Reminder

Since my blogging habit have become more erratic of late I have forgotten to write about stuff that happens. Sorry about this. One important event is the release of the final draft of the GPLv3.

GPLv3

What follows is a brief period for commenting then the draft will get the final and official form and go live.

More info at: FSF official page or Ciaran’s blog (FSFE).

Thanks to Personal Notes for the reminder…

Bad Attitude

The blog Bad Vista puts a nice perspective on the difference in attitude between free and proprietary software:

As the GPL preamble says:

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software–to make sure the software is free for all its users.

In contrast, a typical Microsoft Vista EULA says:

The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.

See the difference in attitude?

Does anyone have a spare?

[pdf, 3.08 MB] The Living Planet Report is WWF’s periodic update on the state of the world’s ecosystems. Pdf file over here.

And it is not good news. The Living Planet Report 2006 confirms that we are using the planetâ??s resources faster than they can be renewed â?? the latest data available (for 2003) indicate that humanityâ??s Ecological Footprint, our impact upon the planet, has more than tripled since 1961. Our footprint now exceeds the worldâ??s ability to regenerate by about 25 per cent.

The consequences of our accelerating pressure on Earthâ??s natural systems are both predictable and dire. The other index in this report, the Living Planet Index, shows a rapid and continuing loss of biodiversity â?? populations of vertebrate species have declined by about one third since 1970.

The report describes the changing state of global biodiversity and the pressure on the biosphere arising from human consumption of natural resources.

It is built around two indicators:

  • the Living Planet Index, which reflects the health of the planet’s ecosystems; and
  • the Ecological Footprint, which shows the extent of human demand on these ecosystems.

These measures are tracked over several decades to reveal past trends, then three scenarios explore what might lie ahead.The scenarios show how the choices we make might lead to a sustainable society living in harmony with robust ecosystems, or to the collapse of these same ecosystems, resulting in a permanent loss of biodiversity and erosion of the planet�s ability to support people.

Find out how you can reduce your ecological footprint.

The Third Draft

The third draft of the GPLv3 has been released. The draft is a result of feedback from various sources (general public, official discussion committees, and two international conferences held in India and Japan). The draft incorporates significant changes since the previous draft (July 2006). This draft is planned to be the penultimate draft prior to the formal release of the official GPLv3.

Changes in this draft include:

* First-time violators can have their license automatically restored if they remedy the problem within thirty days.
* License compatibility terms have been simplified, with the goal of making them easier to understand and administer.
* Manufacturers who include the software in consumer products must also provide installation information for the software along with the source. This change provides more narrow focus for requirements that were proposed in previous drafts.
* New patent requirements have been added to prevent distributors from colluding with patent holders to provide discriminatory protection from patents.

    The draft will be open for comments and discussion for sixty days. Following this the FSF will release a “last call” draft, followed by another thirty days for discussion before the FSF’s board of directors approves the final text of GPL version 3.

    Richard Stallman, president of the FSF and principal author of the GNU GPL, said, “The GPL was designed to ensure that all users of a program receive the four essential freedoms which define free software. These freedoms allow you to run the program as you see fit, study and adapt it for your own purposes, redistribute copies to help your neighbor, and release your improvements to the public. The recent patent agreement between Microsoft and Novell aims to undermine these freedoms. In this draft we have worked hard to prevent such deals from making a mockery of free software.”

    GPLv3 Update

    The work on version three of the GNU General Public License (Wikipedia) is moving along nicely. A news update on the progress reads:

    The second discussion draft of GPLv3 was released eight months ago, in July 2006. We had never planned to let so much time pass between public releases of the license. We felt it was important to fully discuss a few specific issues, including the recent patent deal between Novell and Microsoft, before proceeding with the process. A new discussion draft will be released on March 28 at 10:00 AM US Eastern time; it represents the outcome of those discussions, and the rationale document that will accompany it explains how we arrived at these decisions. However, we remain absolutely committed to hearing input from as much of the free software community as possible before publishing a final version of the license. We are adjusting the drafting process to make sure that everyone interested has an opportunity to make their voice heard.

    The third discussion draft will be open for comment for sixty days. Based on the feedback we receive during this window, we may publish new language from time to time for additional review. For example, if someone points out a side effect of some term that we hadn’t considered before, we may publish updated text for that section aimed at addressing the issue. These changes will be announced on the GPLv3 web site and mailing list.

    We will continue to take feedback from public comments and discussion committees as before. In addition, if there are common questions about the license, we will address those in blog posts on the GPLv3 web site. Our goal is not to preempt discussion or criticism of the draft, but rather to enhance that discussion by helping the community fully understand the text. We are also considering other ways to solicit input, which we will announce as they are planned.

    After this discussion period is over, we will publish a last call draft. That draft will be open for comment for thirty days, and the final license will be published shortly afterwards. We would like to thank everyone for their continued support during this process, and their assistance as we work to make the our licenses the best they can be.

    Read more about the GPLv3 and the progression of its development at the GPLv3 site.

    Incompatible Licenses

    This morning a short question was posed on one of the Creative Commons mailing lists (cc-community).

    I have a simple question. Why are all the Creative Commons licenses incompatible with the GPL?

    This was an excellent little question and since then the mailing list has been busy sending in responses and thoughts. Since this is an open mailing list it is ok to quote one of the answers which I found very well written and helpful in explaining this important issue. The reply comes from Greg London and is as follows:

    (broad brushstrokes follow.
    Nit-pickers need not apply)

    If you’re talking about converting
    content between the CC-SA and GNU-GPL
    licenses, then the problem is basically
    a side effect of copyleft.

    Copyleft licenses keep the content Free
    by demanding that the content and any
    derivatives are always available under
    the same license as the original.

    This prevents someone from putting more
    restrictions on the work and taking a
    version of Free content private.

    Almost counter intuitively, copyleft
    protects the content by disallowing
    someone from removing restrictions on
    the work. This could be abused by allowing
    someone to first convert the content from
    a copyleft license to a public domain license,
    and then allowing the person to create
    proprietary forks.

    So, copyleft keeps the work Free by demanding
    that the content and its derivatives must always
    be held under the same license as the original.

    Which means that if you have two copyleft
    licenses, but they have different requirements,
    they are incompatible. The GNU-GPL and CC-SA
    licenses are both copyleft. But the GNU-GPL has
    a source code requirement that the CC-SA does not.

    If you took CC-SA content and converted it to
    GNU-GPL, you would be adding a source code
    requirement to the content that did not exist
    before. And if you took GNU-GPL content and
    converted it to CC-SA, you’d be removing the
    source code requirement.

    And since both say you can’t change the requirements,
    converting between either license is disallowed.

    The idea CC is apparently working on for making
    licenses inter-operable is to put language into
    the license that allows the content to be licensed
    under the original license, or any license that is
    deemed to be similar enough, for some fuzzy definition
    of “enough”.

    They already have something like this that makes sure
    that, for example, the different language versions
    of CC-SA are compatible with each other. The way I
    understand it, they’re are going to try to use the
    same approach to expand compatibility outside of the
    CC-SA licenses.

    Since no CC license has a “source code” requirement,
    I don’t think any CC license will ever be directly
    interchangable with GNU-GPL. But they are trying to
    solve the problem of license proliferation by building
    in a mechanism that will allow all the content to be
    transferred to licenses that are deemed “close enough”.

    I hope this helps.

    You can join the list and/or read the archives.

    Train day 2

    Yesterday included a six hour train ride from Stockholm and back again. The point was to go meet some people and organise my visa for the Indian trip next week. Today was another six hours on the train. This time it was off to Linköping to give a Creative Commons presentation. The journey was with Jonas �berg who was presenting the third draft of the GPLv3 which is about to be officially released in a matter of hours.

    Interesting stuff and an enthusiastic audience made the brief stay in Linköping worthwhile. Unfortunately the last train home left at 8pm so we were pressed for time.

    On the train home and I have just bugged Jonas to put his presentation online – download the pdf here.

    Java under GPL

    Sun will release key parts of Java under GPLv2 today! The initial release today will include the HotSpot runtime, javac compiler, JavaHelp, and Sun’s Java ME implementation. The rest of Java will be released under GPLv2 early next year.

    The license that GPL Java will be released under includes a classpath exception, which allows linking against the Java class libraries without open sourcing your code, so the GPL licensing will not affect the ability of Java developers to produce closed source applications with Java.

    In addition, Sun will offer dual licensing of Java, so there will also be a commercial port still available which is fully certified to be standards compliant.

    “This is a milestone for the whole industry,” said Rich Green. “Not only are we making an influential and widely used software platform for the Web available under an open-source license, it also underscores Sun’s commitment to changing the whole industry model for how software is enhanced and developed.”

    (via JavaLobby)