GPLv3 info from FSF

The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which recent discussion has presented inaccurate information.

1. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code.  We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we would not have this power.  Software developers will continue to have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is published, and we will respect their decisions.

2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain “use restrictions” that would restrict what you can do with it. Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won’t either.

GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users’ freedom to modify the code.  We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to “use” free software — namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it.  This policy is not a “use restriction”: it doesn’t restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn’t restrict what they, or you, can make the program do.  Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are.

3. Where GPLv2 relies on an implicit patent license, which depends on US law, GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license that does the same job internationally.

Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to “lose its entire [software] patent portfolio”.  It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can’t sue the program’s subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program.  This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement.

Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents.  Therefore, if we could abolish every entity’s entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance.  But it isn’t possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result.

We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem.  The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting “extreme” positions.  We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents.  To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law.

GPL Violations

GPL Violations wins case against D-Link. D-Link had argued that the GPL was not legally binding.

On September 6, 2006 the district court issued its judgement, confirming the claims by gpl-violations.org, specifically its rights on the subject-matter source code, the violation of the GNU GPL by D-Link, the validity of the GPL under German law, and D-Links obligation to reimburse gpl-violations.org for legal expenses, test purchase and cost of re-engineering. Only the amount of the legal expenses was considered too high by some insignificant amount of 300 EUR. Therefore, this decision marks a clear-cut victory for gpl-violations.org. D-Link may file an appeal against the judgement.

(Via Cyberlaw)

Evolution of a Social Contract (the GPLv3 process)

OK so the GPL is a copyright license. But in part it has also evolved into something larger than life. It has become one of those rare things among legal documents – an icon.

Naturally it is not alone in this position. But what is interesting is that other icons tend to be “larger”. The US constitution is an icon, the declaration of rights is an icon. Very few contracts and licenses can be called iconic since few or none ever make it outside their small community. So what happens when the process of technological development forces the “evolution” of a license?

Unlike nature we cannot expect a natural selection. The development must be moved by an outside force. It can be done either dictatorially or democratically. In one way dictatorially is easier – you don’t have to ask all the people what they think. But using this process does not work with software licenses since the dissatisfaction of users will only lead to the demise of the license. Democracy also has its advantages. It allows for participation and the ability of smart people to bring forward comments and ideas that the dictator may not have recognised. The GPL has chosen a democratic process.
The formal system can best be seen in the overview of the process, which begins with the initial release and presentation of the draft of the GPLv3 with additional documentation such as the overview of the review system and the explanatory documents. In addition to the more formal structure the information needs to be communicated out to the users and to ensure an equality of information transfers was established. The latter was accomplished primarily through the use of the Internet as a distribution method of all texts and additional audio and video material.

The essence of the drafting process here described is to make it possible for the Free Software Foundation to decide the contents of the GPL through the fullest possible discussion with the most diverse possible community of drafters and users. Ideally, we would identify every issue affecting every user of the license and resolve these issues with a full consideration of their risks and benefits. In order to accomplish such a large task, the discussion process involves individual community members and Discussion Committees that represent different types of users and distributors.

The process was formally commenced with the release of the first Discussion Draft of version 3 of the GPL (including additional explanatory material) at the first International Public Conference in January 2006, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The two day event at MIT was recorded and the audio video material was also made available online. The second draft has recently been released.

To ensure that comments on the GPL are collected and dealt with Discussion Committees have been formed. The members of the committees were chosen to represent diverse users groups such as â??â?¦large and small enterprises, both public and private; vendors, commercial and noncommercial redistributors; development projects that use the GPL as a license for their programs; development projects that use other free software licenses, but are invested in the contents of the GPL; and unaffiliated individual developers and people who use softwareâ??. The role of these committees is to organise and analyse the received comments and propose solutions.

The FSF invited the initial members of the Discussion Committees but granted the committees the power to invite further members and to autonomously organise their work process. The committees work to encourage commentary on the license from the sectors they represent. Once the comments have been collected, organised and analysed the committee is responsible for presenting its results of the deliberations to the FSF.

Aside from this organisational method of soliciting and analysing comments from a wider public the FSF have created an online method of allowing anyone to comment directly on the license draft. This is done by creating a software based commenting system, which works in this way. The draft text of the GPLv3 is online and users can mark a section of text, which they wish to comment, and then type â??câ??. Doing this opens a comment box, which allows the user to add a comment.

Once a user has commented on a section of text that section becomes highlighted. If no-one has commented on the text the background colour is white. After a comment the background is light yellow. The colour of the background becomes progressively darker for each comment added. This colour system allows users to see at a glance which sections of the draft are the most commented.

By holding the cursor over highlighted text the user is informed how many comments have been made on that section. By clicking on highlighted text the comments that have been made appear and can be read. The latter feature has the added benefit of reducing the amount of duplicated comments since the commentator can see the commentary of others.
So what are you waiting for? Participate in the democracy!

GPLv3 Second draft

Never turn your back on progress. I was offline for a couple of days and the second discussion draft was published along with explanatory texts and the first discussion drafts of the GNU Lesser General Public License. This was a couple of days ago – but still well worth reporting here.

The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released on 2006 July 27, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License.

Read all about it!

GPLv3 issues: TiVO-isation

This is the first of a series of discussions on the version 3 of the GPL. This post will report on the oddly named process of TiVO-isation.

At times the GNU/Linux desktop operating system is seen as the flagship of Free Software but it is important to remember that while the flagship is important and symbolic it is not the foundation upon which the impact of Free Software should be measured.

The greatest technological foundation of Free Software is the use of stripped down Linux kernels in embedded applications. One such application is the TiVO recorder. The TiVO is an embedded device made up of several GNU packages. The device is capable of recording several TV channels at the same time.

The definition of Free Software is sometimes reproduced in a simple â??four freedomsâ?? format. If software fulfils these four conditions it is Free. If any of the four freedoms is limited in any way the software is proprietary. For the sake of completeness the four freedoms are listed here:

Freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

According to the freedoms it permissible to modify a GPL licensed program without re-distributing it, or running proprietary software on top of the GPL licensed software.

The TiVO has modified GNU/Linux in order to implement DRM within the operation of their video recorder. In compliance with the GPL, they released the source code for these modifications. Users are therefore able to modify the code and the operation of the video recorder. To this extent the TiVO is GPL compliant.

The problem is that TiVO contains a special mechanism that shuts down the machine if the user attempts to install modified software. Therefore the user is allowed to modify the code but is prevented from in reality from using these modifications in the embedded application of the TiVO. This makes freedom 1 into a sham.

The new version of the GPL (version 3) will prevent the compliance with the letter of the freedoms without the compliance to the purpose and spirit of the GPL.

GPLv3 audio & video

The audio & video recordings from the 3rd International GPLv3 Conference held in Barcelona during June 22nd & 23rd 2006 are now online. The torrent files can be downloaded from here and include presentations by Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and Georg Greve (amongst others). My own claim to fame was that I was on the enforcement panel on day 2.

GPLv3 report II

Eben Moglen began his presentation by putting recent news in new perspective. He spoke of the retirement of Bill Gates in a way that I found intriguing.
When a CEO states that he resigns there is a period of calming the market. Therefore when Gates says he will step down in two years this should not be seen as a long time. Two years it is the minimum timeframe that will not spook the market. The important issue is that the resignation comes 6 months from the shipping the most important product in 10 years.

Also we can put this into another perspective the FSF is on schedule with the most important product in 15 years. The update of to the GPLv3. The process going to version three is open and public. Philosophically it reflects the rule-making process put forward by Habermas where the idea is that those affected by the rules should be part of the decision making process.

When discussing the substantial changes Eben explain why the GPLv3 has been adapted to meet the needs of issues such as distribution via torrents, the developments within patents and the increase in DRM.

On the latter he explained that companies feel that they should be allowed to have rights (digital) and want to protect them. Many of these feel that RMS is attempting to change their vocabulary (from Rights to Restrictions). But this is not about attempting to use a software license to address non-software problems. The license (and its implementation) is about the software and the four freedoms. DRM is about the attempt to prevent users from practicing the 4 freedoms.

In closing before an extended Q&A session Eben returned to the issue of Microsoft. The falling revenues and the stepping down of Bill Gates will have the effect that one of strongest voices against Free Software will be silenced (almost). In the future arguing for Free Software will therefore not meet the strong resistance it is accustomed to.

GPLv3 report

The conference begins with Georg Greve explaining the organisation of FSF with its idea of sister organisations of FSF USA, FSF Europe, FSF Asia and FSF Latin America.

This was followed by Richard Stallman explaining what the GPLv3 would entail. He begins by stating very clearly that the most important thing to remember about any version of the GPL is that it is a free software license. Additionally the goal of the FSF is the liberation of cyberspace. This goal will be carried out by maintaining and defending four freedoms.

Software following the four freedoms is Free Software. If any freedom is substantially missing then it is proprietary software. The problem with this is that proprietary software is about the subjugation of users.

It is easy to write a license which says you are free to do what you want. But this is not the best way to liberate all the users. This is because people will modify and then distribute it as proprietary software. Copyleft is the method of preventing this practice. Copyleft is copyright flipped over. Copyright subjugates users. Copyleft prevents the middlemen from enclosing the code and making it proprietary.

Stallman then went through the highlights of important changes which are being discussed in the GPLv3.

This talk was followed by Ciaran Oâ??Riordan who gave a short talk of the public process before it was time for lunch.

The guilt of a travelling techie

I replaced my iPod yesterday after the total collapse of my last one. Today I read about the iSweatshops. The iPods are assembled in China by mainly female workers. The workforceâ?¦

â?¦resides in “iPod cities” with as many as 200,000 employees. Outsiders are forbidden, and 15-hour workdays are the norm. As you might expect, the wages are low, even for China. (Foreign Policy).

Tomorrow I will fly to Barcelona to participate in the GPLv3 conference besides being an event that I am looking forward to, the privilege of visiting foreign cities is one I value. Recently the discussion on environmental damage caused by flights has taken speed â?? especially with the rapid rise of cheap tickets which increases our â??unnecessaryâ?? flights.

Monbiot writes: â??Flying kills. We all know it, and we all do it.

Monbiot is referring to the environmental effects of flying. He claims (convincingly) that while most of our reliance on fuels causing carbon emissions can be reduced without a too serious limitation to our freedom â?? this does not apply to flying. Reducing carbon emissions caused by flying means reducing the number of flights we take.

Both these arguments (iSweatshops & flying) have something important in common. They both bring into question things I appreciate. The question that must be posed from this information is â?? what shall I do about it?

When bringing this information to people he meets Monbiot writes of the listeners response: â??They just want to enjoy themselves. Who am I to spoil their fun? The moral dissonance is deafening.â??

The first impulse may be the ostrich approach â?? by sticking oneâ??s neck into the sand the bad news can be ignored. This approach should not be ignored â?? it works surprisingly well and is applied successfully by many. I tried this for a while â?? unfortunately it eventually wears thin. Another approach is self-denial. A no-excuses approach to technology and flights. This entails limiting everything to the bare necessities â?? without allowing for rationalisations. This involves denying oneself of many of the things that I appreciate â?? not an easy approach.

Can there be a middle-of-the-road approach? Is awareness better than ignorance? This argument would mean that our knowledge of the harm our choices entail legitimises our actions even if this has no real effect on physical events (better working conditions or environment). As much as I would like this, I cannot believe this is a solid approach to improvement.

The answer? Donâ??t look at me. I believe it is better to be aware than ignorant of the harm I do â?? even if this cannot mitigate the harm.

Exciting news and GPL3

Exciting news! I will be part of a panel at the 3rd International GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona next week. Look at the schedule (highlights below) can you imagine a more interesting two days?

Highlights day 1 – 22 June
10:30 – Georg Greve: opening introduction
11:00 – Richard Stallman: Overview of GPL v3 Changes
12:30 – Ciarán O’Riordan: The public consultation process
14:30 – Eben Moglen: The wording of the changes

Highlights day 2 – 23 june
10:30 Panel: Current projects of FSFE

  • Carlo Piana (Tamos Piana & Partners), the MS anti-trust case
  • Pablo Machón, building the Spanish team
  • Ciaran O’Riordan, Legislation from Brussels
  • Stefano Maffulli, FSFE’s Fellowship

11:30 Panel: Awareness and adoption of GPLv3

  • Fernanda Weiden, Associação SoftwareLivre.org
  • Anne Ã?stergaard, GNOME Foundation
  • Alexandre Oliva, Free Software Foundation Latin America

12:30 Pablo Machón: GPLv3 and the European software patent struggle
14:30 Panel: The Discussion Committees

  • Niibe Yutaka, Free Software Initiative Japan (committee A)
  • Philippe Aigrain, Sopinspace (committee C)
  • Masayuki Hatta, Debian (committee D)

15:30 Panel: Enforcing the GPL, thwarting DRM

  • Harald Welte, gpl-violations.org
  • David “Novalis” Turner, Free Software Foundation
  • Mathias Klang, Informatics researcher, University of Goteborg

16:30 Stefano Maffulli: Closing presentation