GPL v3 released, what do you think?

[Jhong]

I'm not flaming you in the slightest, Michael .

If this topic was not for discussion, you should have stated so in the first post.

OTOH, If you're going to post flippant comments on the GPL, expect it to be debated!

Apologies if I have insulted you in any way -- my response was more shrill than I intended, largely because mine was the first dissenting voice int he thread, and I felt pretty strongly onthe subject.

If you wish to continue to debate, I will do my best to disagree more respectfully

[Techie-Micheal]

I'm not flaming you in the slightest, Michael .

If this topic was not for discussion, you should have stated so in the first post.

OTOH, If you're going to post flippant comments on the GPL, expect it to be debated!

Apologies if I have insulted you in any way -- my response was more shrill than I intended, largely because mine was the first dissenting voice int he thread, and I felt pretty strongly onthe subject.

If you wish to continue to debate, I will do my best to disagree more respectfully

You apologize, but then turn around and insult again? Not exactly nice of you.

I have no problem with a debate, I do have a problem with flaming. I wouldn't have started this topic if I didn't want a discussion and I fully expected to hear both sides. But I do not want to hear someone flaming other users and me.

Should I call your comments flippant? Should I tell you that you don't know what you are talking about? That's exactly what you are doing to the rest of us. I, along with others, have been in this "business" longer than we care to remember. I think we can recognize when something that claims to be free suddenly starts restricting more than some proprietary projects ... This license is about politics, not users and developers. Those comments are not "flippant," they are based on our knowledge, experience, and view of the license in question. Aren't most licenses and the like open to interpretation anyway? You present your opinion as above everybody here, but for all you know, someone here could be a lawyer specializing in open source projects. We all have our opinions, it is not up to you to decide you suddenly think you are better than everybody else. Debate, great, but when you start flaming, expect someone to call you out on it!

[Jhong]

Michael, again I truly am sorry for offending you -- that is NOT my intention.

I honestly believe the comments in the OP are flippant. This is not an ad-hominem attack.

Flippant -- definition: Showing inappropriate levity

The comments in the OP:

Eh what? I'm a capitalist, thank you very much.

What the expletive? DVD is evil? When did this happen?

Is it just me or do these people see a lot of conspiracies?

IMO, flippant. Every one of them. You must see that, right

Seriously, the first comment totally missed the point of the GPL -- it know it sounds extremely arrogant, but seriously, the "free = freedom, not as in price" is the most basic concept of the GPL. This comment betrays a total lack of understanding of the GPL. If this wan't your comment, then I apologise -- my response was directed specifically at that.

Look, I'm not above anyone here -- but I do have a strng opinion on this. As I'm sure many of us do.

My post was the first in the thread that didn't "fall into line" with the common view. So I worded it strongly to get a bit of attention, and hopefully spark a bit of real debate. I've already apologised for being too shrill.

smithy_dll made some excellent points (and corrected me on a few of mine). I'd love to argue a few of the points with you too, without getting bogged down with the meta-language of debate, and without having to tread on eggshells for fear of offending you when that is certainly not my intent.

Why do I feel strongly on the need for GPLv3? I see the Novell-MS patent deal as a real threat to the viability of Linux in the future. Patents are a real and growing threat.

Patents in and of themselves ae a good idea -- however, in the realm of software, they do not have their intended effect -- that of promoting and rewarding innovation. No, they have the opposite effect. My example above of "one-click ordering" is real. Companies have bought up patents as a business opportunity, not to protect innovation. It rewards the big guys.

Free / GPLed software can't compete in this arena. As soon as you require users to pay a fee to indemnify themselves against patent threats, the software is no longer free. It is proprietary.

Second poinnt -- both smithy_dll and yourself have said that the GPL is too restrictive. IMO, this is missing the point. The point is that the GPL is strict on the distributor, to one end and one end only -- to ensure the rights of the end user.

If you distribute using the GPL, the end user is free to do what they want with the software -- use it, change it, redistribute it, charge for it, whatever. However, they cannot revoke those rights from their end users... and so on.

IMO, it is a bit dishonest to call this "as restrictive as proprietary software". It is restrictive to the extent that it ensures the software remains, and will always be free. All of us can take phpBB, modify it, change its name and create our own projects (provided we give appropriate attribution in the copyright). However, no-one who does this can prevent their end users from doing the same. That's what I would call "enforced freedom", not "restriction".

"Totally free" in your sense would be not to hae a license at all. Under these circumstances, someone could take phpBB, hack a fantastic new feature onto it -- say, better AJAX, a new theme, a new plugin system..., make it proprietary, and then distribute it for free. If users migrated, phpBB would die. And we would all be utterly reliant on that company for updates. If in the future they decided to charge, we could be screwed.

So the GPLv3 is only restrictive to the extent that something like that could never happen.

I'm a bit disappointed that more phpBB team members aren't right behind this --- you all must have your reasons for using the GPL. One of the best reasons is that phpBB will always be innovated on, will always be in the public domain. Even if the whole team quit, someone else would carry the phpBB torch. The GPLv3 is just updated to reflect the realities of today. It just makes sure that nothing will get in the way of that torch.

And it works -- phpBB has a very healthy ecosystem of mods, forks, spin-offs and commercial derivatives. Do you think this would be the same with a proprietary license? Of course not... It's in part due to phpBB's good design, but IMO even more due to the rigorously enforced freedom that the GPL provides.

Seriously, look at Richard Stallman's website, view his speeches and tell me he has ulterior motives -- the GPL is about as altruistic as it gets.

You say the GPLv3 is too "political" -- please explain how. Which political belief system do you think it closely represents? Socialism vs. capitalism? Nope -- the GPL explains clearly that it is not about price. I just see it as being about freedom, vigorously protecting that freedom, and reaping the rewards from the increased innovation that results. (It's actually designed, IMO as a "freedom virus" which clearly has the power to spread through the software world).

I love open source software -- I use it every day. I love my Linux desktop, and all its good, free software. I want the right to be able to use, build upon, improve it in the future. There are several contemporary influences that are seriously threatening to take this away from me. The GPLv3 just reflects those influences and is designed to protect the status quo.

[SamG]

The “politics” problem seems to have been best articulated by Linus Torvalds. This Ars Technica article captures his point of view pretty well, I think:

I've had some private discussions with various people about this already, and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it. [...] And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of.

Linus appears not to want the Linux kernel to be used in an ideological way beyond the core ideology of the GPL, and I can appreciate his point.

I would feel the same way about phpBB (not that it matters, but just for the sake of discussion). If somebody started wielding phpBB as an ideological weapon that began restricting rights (as the GPLv3 clearly does), I'd be opposed. For example, there are posts here from time to time about people using phpBB to distribute warez, porn, hate speech, etc., to the effect that the phpBB license ought to prohibit such things. I don't think so. Or closer to the issues at hand, should the phpBB license weigh in on DRM? It's not clear to me that it should.

So, if the GPLv3 supports software freedom by restrictive licensing (e.g., no DRM), then there's a tension we didn't have before. It's not obvious that this tension is acceptable, at least not obvious to everybody.

In any case, keep in mind that phpBb is an open source project, a big one at that. You've come across as suggesting that TM and others critical of GPLv3 are confused about the very notion of free software. You have to admit that the suggestion sounds odd. When it comes to the merits of software freedom, you're preaching to the choir.

[Techie-Micheal]

To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

The person replied in my original post stating he was a capitalist. Nowhere did he state that he confused about the GPL, or what it means. In fact, he stated that the FSF are fools for claiming that it is unethical to want to not use the GPL or other such FOSS license. Well, he didn't say fools, that was me, but you get the point. The statement is clear--this is about our rights, not what the FSF thinks is unethical or immoral. We write the software, and if we choose to release it under a closed source license, that's our prerogative. Kinda silly for you to claim that I, or anybody else in this topic, are confused about the GPL. As SamG stated, you are preaching to the choir. I've been here for over 7 years, do you honestly think I don't know what the GPL is or what it is about?

And what of the political garbage I speak of? This isn't about classes, this is about the FSF making decisions that are not based on helping users, but rather their own personal feelings.

[Cessen]

My apologies for jumping in on an debate like this for my first (and possibly last) post. I was simply searching to see if phpBB would be adopting the GPL v3 or not because I have used phpBB in the past for project communications (and probably will in the future as well) so I care about it's licensing.

While the FSF itself is obviously extremely politically motivated, I honestly don't understand the assertion that the GPL v3 is somehow more political than v2. The two main changes to the GPL v3 over the GPL v2 are both about preventing people from (in essence) making Free Software non-free, and that is totally in line with the spirit of the GPL.


The first big change is related to patents. Someone could potentially submit code that falls under a patent they own to a GPL project, and then later sue people for distributing the software without permission. This effectively makes portions of the software non-free, because it cannot be redistributed or used without the patent-holders permission. There are also more complex patent-based attacks, but they all essentially boil down to the above tactic.

The GPL v3 protects against such attacks by saying, in essence, "If you use or distribute a GPLed piece of software [EDIT: correction: in fact it is only if you distribute it; simply using it is not enough], you must give up any relevant patents you hold so that others can use and distribute that software too."
(By "giving up" I mean giving up with relation to GPL software. It's not an actual forfeit of the patent.)

Dunno about you, but this sort of protection makes sense to me and seems fair. And it very much seems to be in the spirit of the GPL.

Incidentally, this is the part that people refer to when they say that GPL v3 is targeting the Microsoft-Novell deal.


The second change is related to using DRM or other restrictive technologies to essentially make Free Software non-free. For instance, say an operating system or hardware platform uses some sort of signing technology, perhaps based on md5 sums, to allow only authorized software to be run on the system. Such a system would essentially remove a person's ability to modify Free Software for all practical purposes (since they couldn't run the modified version).

GPL v3 prevents GPLed software from falling into that trap by saying, in essence, that you can't put GPLed software into systems that are specifically designed to disallow modified versions from being run. It does make exceptions for cases where such a situation is unavoidable (or impractical to avoid) due to the very nature of the platform, such as certain types of embedded devices.
Granted, this seems pretty "out there". But it actually happened with Tivo, for instance, so it's not as out there as you might think.


In addition to the above two changes, the entire document has been made more precise than GPL v2. This, unfortunately, results in it being quite long and heavy on legalese. However, is has the benefit of making it a stronger legal document.

It also has some "bug fixes". For example, to quote RMS:

You'll also find that its termination conditions work much better in the case of a distributor of an entire GNU + Linux distribution who makes a mistake, and thus violates the GPL for thousands of programs at once. And, of course, wants to correct it. With GPL version 2, that person who made a mistake, loses the license permanently for every program from every copyright holder, and has to then go and beg forgiveness from everyone, which is not feasible. But, with GPL version 3, if they correct the mistake and the copyright holders don't complain in 60 days, then they're in the clear. So they'll only have to negotiate with those who actually did complain. Assuming of course that they are sincere people and they correct the mistake. We are still in a good position to enforce the license against anyone who intends to violate it and doesn't correct the mistake.

I think the GPL v3 is a positive thing. I would encourage you to look into it a bit more seriously.

[iyeru42]

We could always use the MIT liscense instead.

[Techie-Micheal]

A bit more seriously? I, among others in this topic, have looked at it seriously. Hence the discussion you see.

[Cessen]

A bit more seriously? I, among others in this topic, have looked at it seriously. Hence the discussion you see.

Well, it seemed to me like many of the people here only gave it a cursory glance: it didn't appear that many here had a clear idea of what the changes from v2 actually were; and many of the comments seemed to suggest that GPL v3 is somehow more political than GPL v2, which seemed bizarre to me.

To restate my original point: the FSF is undoubtedly extremely political, but the GPL v3 itself is no more political than GPL v2. Of course, it is easy to argue that the GPL v2 is political too. But my point was simply that v3 is no more political than v2.

If you disagree with those politics, it would be a good idea to switch away from the GPL v2 as well. Possibly moving to a BSD or MIT style license, as was suggested by iyeru42.
I am certainly not against such a switch, as they are both good licenses as well.

[Techie-Micheal]

To restate my original point: the FSF is undoubtedly extremely political, but the GPL v3 itself is no more political than GPL v2. Of course, it is easy to argue that the GPL v2 is political too. But my point was simply that v3 is no more political than v2.

I'll have to agree to disagree. The movements by FSF to me appear to be far more politically-motivated than GPL v2.

If you disagree with those politics, it would be a good idea to switch away from the GPL v2 as well. Possibly moving to a BSD or MIT style license, as was suggested by iyeru42.
I am certainly not against such a switch, as they are both good licenses as well.

eh wha? This is about v3, not about v2, which I think most, if not all, have agreed that it is rather good for the purpose it serves.

[Cessen]

I'll have to agree to disagree. The movements by FSF to me appear to be far more politically-motivated than GPL v2.

Again you reference the FSF instead of the GPL v3. These are not the same thing, any more than the FSF and GPL v2 are the same thing.
(To put it another way: you can use the GPL v3 without agreeing to the politics of the FSF, just as you can use the GPL v2 without agreeing to the politics of the FSF. Surely you understand this.)

I have already explicitly agreed that the FSF is highly political, so please move on from that and start discussing the GPL v3 by its own merits. I am not asking that you discuss specific lines of the license, mind you, just that you stick to discussing its own effects and implications rather than those of the FSF.

So, with all of that said:

If you believe that the GPL v3 itself contains terms or conditions that are political in ways that go beyond the politics of the GPL v2, please explain. It is this point that confuses me most.

[Techie-Micheal]

I'll have to agree to disagree. The movements by FSF to me appear to be far more politically-motivated than GPL v2.

Again you reference the FSF instead of the GPL v3. These are not the same thing, any more than the FSF and GPL v2 are the same thing.
(To put it another way: you can use the GPL v3 without agreeing to the politics of the FSF, just as you can use the GPL v2 without agreeing to the politics of the FSF. Surely you understand this.)

Because FSF is the group that created the GPL v3. Surely you understand this.

I have already explicitly agreed that the FSF is highly political, so please move on from that and start discussing the GPL v3 by its own merits. I am not asking that you discuss specific lines of the license, mind you, just that you stick to discussing its own effects and implications rather than those of the FSF.

Let me restate it then. The FSF created the license. They injected their own political wants in to the license. As such, GPL v3 is highly politically-motivated. As for why I view the difference between v2 and v3, I have already stated that.

[Cessen]

As such, GPL v3 is highly politically-motivated. As for why I view the difference between v2 and v3, I have already stated that.

Just to be sure, I went back through the thread and read each of your posts in their entirety. The only time you speak about any such specifics is in your initial post. Here are the only parts of that post that actually reference the GPL v3:

- GPL v3 allows DRM (depending on how you view it, not necessarily a bad thing)

If anything, this is an example of the GPL v3 not being political.

- FSF have allowed political motivations (the worst kind of motivation, IMO) to define v3, rather than trying to further the GPL and FOSS

Specifics please? What aspects of the GPL v3 are politically motivated? Even just a couple examples would be fine.

- Far more legalese than previously, making it harder for the average developer to figure out if v3 is appropriate for them

A good point.
However, this was necessary in order to make the GPL more precise (and thus easier to enforce) and to give it better internationalization (easier to enforce internationally).
But yes, yes. I do see your point, and it is definitely a valid concern.

However, is this your entire basis for being against it?

- Are far more restrictive than previously, makes things feel like some proprietary project than free software

Again, specifics? Examples? Are there aspects of the GPL v3 that I did not cover in my original post? Additional restrictions? Am I misinformed about some aspect of it?

If I am in error please explain how and correct me (and I genuinely mean that; it is not a challenge of any kind).

(I understand that these next two quotes are not yours, but you did quote them and it seemed like you agreed with them. If I am inferring your agreement incorrectly, please say so.)

GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids tivoization.

and by extension that it will not be used in these programs.

(Incidentally, I summarized the relevant license conditions this is referring to in my original post, only the last part of which you--or anyone else for that matter--responded to.)

That is not the case. GPL v3 only states that GPL v3 software cannot be put under such shackles. GPL v3 code can still implement such shackles, but (obviously) you wouldn't be allowed to restrict other GPL v3 software with them. To me this seems perfectly sane, and well within the spirit of the GPL: it's making sure that you can continue to (meaningfully) modify GPL code.

Again, if I am wrong please explain how and correct me.

The explicit patent license in GPLv3 does not go as far as we might have liked. Ideally, we would make everyone who redistributes GPL-covered code surrender all software patents, along with everyone who does not redistribute GPL-covered code. Software patents are a vicious and absurd system that puts all software developers in danger of being sued by companies they have never heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in the field. Large programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no surprise if they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. Patents already obstruct free software development.

Again, these people will not use GPLv3 due to this. Or maybe I'm missing something? I think they're saying that anyone using GPLv3 surrenders all patents?

This FSF quote is taken out of context, and does not represent the relevant clauses and conditions in the GPL v3. This, in fact, is another example of where they refrained from making the GPL v3 political. That quote is what they would have liked to have done, but did not.

To correct this in a nut shell: if you distribute a piece of GPL v3 code, you implicitly promise not to sue other GPL v3 projects only over code that falls under patents of yours that apply to that specific piece of code that you distributed.
It does not relinquish the patents to anything outside of the GPL v3, and it does not relinquish any patents that do not directly apply to the code being distributed.

(I believe I was in error in my first post to this thread. Looking more carefully, it appears that it only applies to "conveying" or "propagating" the code, not using or modifying it.)

Again, this seems sane and reasonable to me. If you give someone GPL v3 code, it is reasonable to expect that you will let them use it in all the ways that the GPL would traditionally allow. If you own software patents that cover that code, and retain the right to sue people over patents that cover that code, you could potentially prevent that.

From the FSF:

GPLv3 also provides for explicit patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement.

In other words, prior to the GPL v3 this protection was implicit, which is shaky legal ground at best. GPL v3 simply makes it explicit.

[ibrahimxbox]

ok it looks good like blog style but have to see how its look with black and gray backgrounds ...
when this version its cooming to the update automaticly the my phpbb 2.0.22 version because i dont know how to upgrade manually