GPLv3 Draft 1 released

aidan_walsh

Full text here | Rationale document

Major differences seem to be that a lot of the implied stuff is now down in black and white, such as the right to use dual licensing, the upper limit of physical distribution of code has been increased from the cost of distribution to a maximum of ten times the cost of distribution, inclusion of terms about DRM systems, and has a pretty heavy rewrite of the terms of Section 1.

Karoma

A potential split in the Open Source movement has opened up. Linus Torvalds, the man behind the Linux operating system that is one of the largest users of the GPL says he will not be migrating the Linux kernel to GPL version 3.

The GNU General Public License is the bedrock on which the Free and open-source (FOSS) movement operates. The licence effectively releases the source code of any software under which it is developed to the public. Any derivatives of GPL code must also be made publicly available.

A new draft version of version 3 of the GNU General Public Licence was published on the Internet earlier this month. The new version, the first since 1991, attempts to address many of the issues that have surfaced regarding intellectual property since then.

One of the most contentious areas is that of digital rights management that the new draft says is 'fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect

In a post to the Linux kernel mailing list Torvalds pointed out, 'The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licensable under v3, but not the kernel in general.' He then stated, 'I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available...I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code.' And of course, without Torvalds' agreement, the migration of the Linux kernel to GPL3 is not going to happen.

Without Linux on board, GPL3 faces serious problems in gaining widespread acceptance, even if, as Torvalds says, certain parts may come under the auspices of the new version. It would also be a major setback to the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman, the original author of the GPL who wrote the new version.

Of course GPL 3 is still only in draft form and doubtless there will be serious negotiations between the Stallman and Torvalds camps to come to an agreement that will both discourage the use of DRM with Open Source code while not outlawing it completely.

The final release of GPL version 3 is due in the spring of 2007.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk

democrates

Hmm. Not impressed by Torvalds hardline tone.

I share his and the Debian communities concerns about using GPL3 to retaliate against drm or software patent proponents both of which I'm vehemently opposed to, but is the GPL the correct vehicle for those campaigns, and what's next on the list of forbidden activities? Four legs good, two legs bad...

Nonetheless, I wonder if Linus has allowed personal tension with RMS ("it should be called GNU/Linux", "No, it's Linux") to cloud his strategic judgement and clumsily created FUD for the FOSS movement with this shockwave, you can hear Ballmer laughing in Redmond.

Within and around the kernel team are a lot of top notch linux developers who may have different opinions, and mightn't take kindly to the benevolent dictator issuing edicts whether they like it or not.

Stallman, Moglen et al have worked hard on this for ages, with consultation, and now it's open for a year of global public input. What would have been wrong with Linus saying there were certain issues to resolve before they could run with it, and pitching into the process? Maybe it's a negotiating tactic inspired by [SIZE=-1]Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[/SIZE].

If the split intensifies we might see added impetus for the GNU/hurd project which isn't going away, maybe the new kid coming to the block is really what's got Linus in a hissy...