Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
First GPL 3 draft released
gplv3.fsf.org — One of the most popular Free Software licenses is in the process of being revised. A preliminary draft of the new version is now available. The next draft will be released in four to five months, after the community has had a chance to comment on the changes.
Bogtha- 356 diggs
- digg it
- Dogmatix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What' mine is mine. What's yours is mine!
- Ebenonce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Commsew VholdsholComesubmit a commentnt View Thnres story holdsho entnory lConresm on ment Vcom stomm on entnory ment on stnresory
- MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program does."
Stating this does not make it true ... the law is always above private contracts and licenses. - JohnTheLutheran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a lawyer, I'm pretty dismayed by this draft. While there is a limit to how simple a key licence like this can be, it is far more complex than it needs to be in terms of wording and layout. It could say everything it does say in a shorter and clearer way. If I can find the time I may even submit a few suggested changes in that direction as part of the consultation process.
As for the comment from MrPhelps - you are right that the legal definition of "effective technological measure" cannot be excluded by a contract. I've not looked in detail at how the draft deals with this, but I'd guess there are two ways this can be seen. (i) Since a GPL-ed program must make the complete source code available, it would presumably be reasonably straightforward to circumvent any anti-copying measures contained in or implemented by the program - so it won't be an "effective" measure. (ii) It could be made a condition of benefiting from the GPL that you don't use GPLed software as part of a DRM system.
But as I say, I've not thought about that in any detail.
One sign of the times that did leap out at me is that distributors can now charge ten times the cost of copying the source code, rather than just charging this at cost. Presumably this is to reflect the fact that the unit costs of copying (say) a CD-ROM are now a few cents at most, but it will be interesting to see how this clause fares through the consultation process.
After all, if you add together the cost of a blank DVD, packaging and postage costs, and then multiply it by ten, you may be looking at a total amount ($50? $100? I'm sure imaginative vendors could push it up to those levels and beyond while staying within the wording of the GPL) that is enough to deter many people from asking for the source. What's more, there is no requirement for these costs to be minimised or "reasonable", so you could decide to use the most expensive medium available as the ten-times mark up would then provide a tidy profit. - bani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1phelps - it just means that you are not allowed to use GPLv3 software in DRM schemes. you want to do DRM? fine. but you're expressly prohibited from using GPLv3 software in it. no law is circumvented.
pretty simple. - GeorgeB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Stating this does not make it true ... the law is always above private contracts and licenses."
What country do you live in and how much weed do they smoke there?
http://www.trueblogging.com - cheesedog12345, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Right to Create has some commentary on the impact of the new explicit requirement that royalty-free, worldwide patent licenses are granted by GPLv3 by anyone who distributes GPLv3 software.
- jothan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have a recording of this event on my blog at http://x2a.org
- MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@georgeb LOL ... I'm French but I'm pretty sure this applies to the US too :)
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by