Previous  |  Next

Wed

03.28.07

Allison Randal

Allison Randal

GPLv3, Third Draft

The FSF released the third draft of the GNU General Public License version 3, today. The third draft was originally scheduled to be released in August of last year, but they delayed the draft in order to add some language to the license in response to the controversial deal between Novell and Microsoft. They plan to have one additional draft review period after this one, and then release the final version of the GPLv3.

I won't comment on the details of the license yet. I'm still in the process of reviewing the new version and accompanying documentation, both in my role on the FSF's Committee A (appointed as advisors to the GPLv3 revision process), and as a foundation board member with primary legal responsibility for two large open source projects currently licensed under the GPLv2. I'll write more on the changes in the current draft over the next few days.

I will say this much: I'm a believer in free software, and in the importance of free software in advancing the freedoms of individuals. But I'm beginning to lose confidence in the FSF as the primary defender of free software principles. The image they're projecting right now is more of an ineffectual nanny slapping the wrists of naughty children than it is of the bold community leader confidently striding on to the visionary future of the free software movement. It's unfortunate. Maybe we'll see change in this draft and the next. Maybe.



tags:   | comments: 8   | Sphere It
submit:

 

0 TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://orm3.managed.sonic.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1922

Comments: 8

Scott Carpenter   [03.28.07 06:46 PM]

It seems to me they are taking action to defend against some current threats and loopholes, and doing so in the face of some strong objections and scathing criticism. It also seems to me that they are taking a lot of risk. If GPLv3 should fail (or be seen as failing), that would be a big downer and blow to the FSF's reputation.

I believe it will succeed, which will have the converse effect of enhancing their reputation. I think RMS, et. al. are sticking with their original visionary plan, despite the fickle attitudes of many who are distracted by the current popularity of free software and are now afraid of what a few corporations might do if denied the ability to lock down the platform (like TiVo has done), despite the fact that these corporations are already busy moving over to free software even with all of its "hippie" ideals and weird communal sharing ethos.

What do you suggest as an alternative bold strategy?

Giampiero Recco   [03.29.07 01:00 AM]

I suggest to give a read also the new European Union Public Licence (EUPL v.1.0) http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6523 .



It has been released just a couple of month ago by the European Commission.



I really appreciate the UE effort on this issue and I think the the license itself is very clear, well written and worth considering especially for companies/individuals from the UE.

Xav   [03.29.07 02:22 AM]

I love your nanny comparison :-) My feeling is that GPL even contributes to keep Free Software projects in darkness: having to respect clauses that only concern the licence itself instead of its main goal is a unnecessary burden, which prevents people and companies from reusing and modifying free softwares or FDL documentation (at least publicly!). While the GPL may have helped stating that Free Software had a valuable existence, it looks like it has become counter-productive...

I think what most people want is to claim that it is ok for others to reuse their work provided that they get credited, not that the reusers respect the Alinea G of the Article 4! That's where Creative Commons has succeeded: focusing on what people want to achieve instead of building a text that defines what Freedom is. Let that to Constitutions!

Fortunately, a lot of commercial companies start to understand that openness is more profitable than closeness, thanks to FSF's work in part, but a lot more because of watching the Network effects. I value that the Internet runs on Free Software, but I don't think it runs on GPL :-)

Henrik   [03.29.07 03:34 AM]

@Xav, GPL isn't supposed to be all things to all people. It has always had the restriction. It is by no means the only Free Software license out there, so why would you want it to become something it has never been before?

If people just want something like CC, I'm sure they can make up their minds to release their software under a different license.

Imo, one of the great benefits of the GPL is the commoditisation of software. The commoditisation of operating systems and browser force companies to invent new ways to commercialise, which is great, as companies tend to be better at inventing.

You could of course use Apache http as an example of commoditisation outside GPL, which is fine by me. It still is an argument to switch license not change the nature of the GPL

Rob Myers   [03.29.07 08:41 AM]

"The image they're projecting right now is more of an ineffectual nanny slapping the wrists of naughty children than it is of the bold community leader confidently striding on to the visionary future of the free software movement."


The image they're projecting is of a very professional organisation listening to their community and trying to move ahead with popular support rather than dictate terms to people. This stands in stark contrast to how they were presented by the likes of Linus and other even at the start of the consultation process.


The vision is clear: support free software by tackling contemporary threats to it. The community are helping to improve the ways in which this vision is realised. Even the bellyachers.

Allison Randal   [03.29.07 06:41 PM]

Rob, I admire your faith, but there's nothing sacrilegious about recognizing that the FSF and the people who make up the FSF have faults and can make mistakes. I have never met a perfect person or a perfect organization, and I seriously doubt I ever will.

One of the core principles of freedom is the ability not to blindly follow what you're told but to carefully critique the successes and failures of your leaders and their policies. And one of the key characteristics of good leaders is the ability to listen to criticism and change as a result. The FSF has done a moderately good job of listening and changing, and I give them the credit they deserve for it. But they can and should do more.

Allison Randal   [03.29.07 08:56 PM]

Xav, I have to agree with Henrik that the purpose of the GPL (and the FSF) is not to maximize the modification and reuse of software. Other licenses fill that need. The GPL makes a different tradeoff, restricting the reuse of GPLd software in certain circumstances in order to maximize access to source code.

My nanny comparison is not at all intended to suggest that the FSF should abandon the GPL or the hard line of software freedom. It's a call for them to regain sight of the goals of software freedom, and not get lost in minutiae.

Allison Randal   [03.29.07 09:20 PM]

I think RMS, et. al. are sticking with their original visionary plan, despite the fickle attitudes of many who are distracted by the current popularity of free software and are now afraid of what a few corporations might do if denied the ability to lock down the platform (like TiVo has done), despite the fact that these corporations are already busy moving over to free software even with all of its "hippie" ideals and weird communal sharing ethos.

I whole-heartedly support their "hippie ideals and weird communal sharing ethos", I'm just not confident that they're doing very well at championing the cause anymore.

What do you suggest as an alternative bold strategy?

That's a topic for another blog post.


Post A Comment:

 (please be patient, comments may take awhile to post)




Remember Me?


Subscribe to this Site

Radar RSS feed

BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE

CURRENT CONFERENCES