GPL

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.”

    Posted on by mklang

    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.

    Posted on by mklang

    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.

    Posted on by mklang

    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.

    Posted on by mklang

    Think of the French…

    Do you associate the French with advanced implementations of Gnu/Linux? Neither did I. But we are wrong â?? the French are now moving ahead in implementing FOSS in government.

    Apparently the servers of the French Gendarmes run on â??open sourceâ?? and also the Ministry of Culture. But in June 2007 the PCs in French deputes’ offices will be equipped with a Gnu/Linux operating system and open-source productivity software.

    The results of an earlier study showed positive results:

    â??The study showed that open-source software will from now on offer functionality adapted to the needs of MPs (members of parliament) and will allow us to make substantial savings despite the associated migration and training costsâ?¦â?? (News.com)

    Swedes like to think of ourselves as being technologically advanced (which we are) but we are really falling far behind in the high level use of FOSS in government. It would be an excellent opportunity to take advantage of Microsoft Vista to go Gnu/Linux…

    More info: Open source software in the General Assembly (in French), Free Software for the deputies (in French).

    Posted on by mklang

    Enlightenment or countering the dangers lurking in darkness

    My friend and colleague Jonas Ã?berg of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) has just turned the pressure on. The Swedish section of the FSFE has recently launched an ad campaign encouraging people to join the Fellowship of the FSFE. The campaign included a bonus give away of a pin or a lanyard to all those who joined before 31 December.

    Today Jonas wrote a blog post where he complained about poor visibility in traffic which places pedestrians and cyclists in danger when it is dark – which is almost always this time of year in Sweden. So in order to do something about this he has just announced that he will buy a reflex vest (out of his own pocket) for anyone in Sweden who joins the Fellowship before the winter solstice (22 December 2006).

    All you have to do is join fsfe.org/join then email him your Fellowship user name and length (for the right vest size) and he will send you a reflex vest…

    This is such a brilliant idea!

    I want to be part of it too. So if you (only in Sweden since this is a Swedish campaign) order your Fellowship (not renew, but become a new member) before the 22 December and you email Jonas your length (for the vest) then I shall send you a copy of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” (please let us know if you want it in Swedish or English).

    Posted on by mklang

    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)

    Posted on by mklang

    A Plan

    My research has been driven by two things. First I am, and want to be, an academic. This makes me interested in theories, methods and attempting to explore and explain the things I see around me. The second part of my driving force is my passion for what I do. I cannot work unless I feel what I do is important and may eventually bring about positive change. With this I do not mean a passion for academia but a passion for the subject matter.

    This latter thing something that many people have pointed out during my thesis defence and the presentations I give. I secretly (not any more?) have difficulty with those who see their research as just another job. I donâ??t mean that they do lesser work â?? they do not. But I donâ??t understand where they find the energy to do things without passion.

    Plan of the Parthenon

    This leads to the point of my announcement. I know what I want to do with the next part of my career life. I aim to continue working under the umbrella of digital rights and democracy, with a particular focus on the actions and perspectives of users.

    As a part of this I have two major projects underway, both in collaboration with smart and exciting people. The first is the development of a base for Free Software research and activity at the IT-University of Göteborg. The second is the development of the Resistance Studies Network at the School of Global Studies. These two are both faculties at the University of Göteborg.

    At the FSF I hope to develop my understanding of legal issues and technical limitations. While at the RSN I intend to focus on digital civil disobedience. These are both topics which I had in my thesis â?? so itâ??s more in depth work rather than breaking new ground personally.

    Right now both these projects are in the planning phases and will result in lots of work. So I will keep you all informed as it progresses.

    It nice to have a plan, so now you knowâ?¦

    Oh, and I have a few odd morbid side-projects, not to mention this blog, which I fully intend to persue but they cannot become mainstream to my work…yet.

    Posted on by mklang

    The Fellowship

    As a member of the Free Software Foundation Fellowship I have finally got around to beginning to work with attempting to get my membership cryptocard to work on my Mac. It is not as easy as I had hoped. The thing is that I have soon abused my tecchie friends to the point where they refuse to actually help me directly but tend to give me small hints. I feel like an illiterate person faced with a crossword…

    This promotes the learning curve but frustrates the hell out of the desire for instant gratification! For those of you who are not yet members of the fellowship I can recommend getting involved. The FSF is a valuable and important resource organisation and it also creates a higher level of awareness of our technical abilities and vunerabilities. Join now.

    Posted on by mklang

    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.

    Posted on by mklang