GPL3 Sees the Light of Day
Starting today, you can actually use the GPL Version 3 to license your code. After an extended gestation, the Free Software Foundation has released its update to the license.
And, contrary to what I expected, it represents significantly less change than might have been expected from earlier drafts. Richard Stallman is a stringent ideologue, but it appears that he concluded that he would rather lead a movement than move forward at the head of a one-person parade.
First, the good news. If you're an end user of GPL3-licensed code, you won't see much difference in terms of how you have to handle code.
Next, the bad news. The 18-month comment period has let many, many, many lawyers submit comments. The resulting license has much more legalese than GPL2. This means you'll need to get attorneys involved much more than in the past to understand just what in the heck the license means in a particular situation.
Now to the specifics.
The DRM conditions have been loosened. What originally read like a screed now reads like a government report, complete with reference to the WIPO copyright treaty. Stallman's idee fixe with "Tivo-ization" resulted in earlier versions effectively negating any protection against user modifications, which, in the case of medical devices (for example) was clearly not desirable. This version explicitly focuses its restrictions on consumer devices, using language like "normally used for personal, family, or household purposes." I predict that this effort will result in lots of billable time for lawyers, since attempting to explicitly define something offers opportunity to figure out how to circumvent the definition.
The patent provisions have kept the original intent, which was to ensure that contributors who put code out under a GPL license explicitly renounce asserting patent rights against users of the code, which is, I think, exactly the right thing to do.
The license also responds to the Novell/Microsoft deal by prohibiting discriminatory patent licenses by third parties; on the other hand, it grandfathers in the Novell/Microsoft deal. Overall, I applaud the prohibition of discriminatory patent protection, because, as Eben Moglen pointed out, the Novell/Microsoft agreement protected users but didn't extend protection to developers -- clearly not a desirable end. (It must be said, however, that the GPL3 patent resolution is but one skirmish in the war regarding software patents, which is a much more troubling contest
Print
And, contrary to what I expected, it represents significantly less change than might have been expected from earlier drafts. Richard Stallman is a stringent ideologue, but it appears that he concluded that he would rather lead a movement than move forward at the head of a one-person parade.
First, the good news. If you're an end user of GPL3-licensed code, you won't see much difference in terms of how you have to handle code.
Next, the bad news. The 18-month comment period has let many, many, many lawyers submit comments. The resulting license has much more legalese than GPL2. This means you'll need to get attorneys involved much more than in the past to understand just what in the heck the license means in a particular situation.
Now to the specifics.
The DRM conditions have been loosened. What originally read like a screed now reads like a government report, complete with reference to the WIPO copyright treaty. Stallman's idee fixe with "Tivo-ization" resulted in earlier versions effectively negating any protection against user modifications, which, in the case of medical devices (for example) was clearly not desirable. This version explicitly focuses its restrictions on consumer devices, using language like "normally used for personal, family, or household purposes." I predict that this effort will result in lots of billable time for lawyers, since attempting to explicitly define something offers opportunity to figure out how to circumvent the definition.
The patent provisions have kept the original intent, which was to ensure that contributors who put code out under a GPL license explicitly renounce asserting patent rights against users of the code, which is, I think, exactly the right thing to do.
The license also responds to the Novell/Microsoft deal by prohibiting discriminatory patent licenses by third parties; on the other hand, it grandfathers in the Novell/Microsoft deal. Overall, I applaud the prohibition of discriminatory patent protection, because, as Eben Moglen pointed out, the Novell/Microsoft agreement protected users but didn't extend protection to developers -- clearly not a desirable end. (It must be said, however, that the GPL3 patent resolution is but one skirmish in the war regarding software patents, which is a much more troubling contest
Most Discussed Posts
Cloud computing has emerged as one of the most significant game changers to hit the technology landscape in the past 20 years. With this massive expansion of the cloud, the perception of the IT organization is shifting from a utility player to a change agent. This eBook breaks down five ways progressive organizations are using cloud-based IT Management solutions to help drive innovation and become more strategic, including: adding visibility and analytics, speeding up time-to-value, lowering costs, improving prioritization, and providing a blueprint for future cloud deployments.
Read the white paper to see how IBM helped Citigroup deliver new services and enhancements to their 200 million customers faster.
There are 3 ways to modernize legacy applications: rewrite completely, acquire packaged solutions or migrate existing code. This paper explains why it's best to migrate and how IBM® Rational® software can help.
Accommodating specific lines of business can result in a hybrid ecosystem of applications and servers. The resulting complexity of this architecture makes for an environment that is costly to maintain and difficult to change when addressing new challenges.
This whitepaper will help you to define a mobile device passcode policy. Security managers must attempt to reconcile two opposing goals. They must: 1) create a passcode policy that is strong enough to protect the device if it is lost or stolen, while: 2) not annoying users with needless length or complexity.
This whitepaper, authored by The Radicati Group, looks at the key reasons organizations should consider moving to a cloud-based archiving solution. Email archiving solutions enable organizations to store, monitor, and collect electronic data exchanged by their users to comply with internal policies and regulations.
ATERNITY will showcase a 30-minute demo on how Fortune 500 companies are leveraging its award-winning FPI Platform to deliver a user-centric approach to Proactive IT Management.
For businesses to move forward and tap into the ever-expanding universe of Internet users and network-enabled devices, it's critical to learn how to make the transition to IPv6. Learn the critical steps your organization must take to make a seamless transition-and keep your business world connected.
Learn how IT teams can protect against spear phishing tactics. Harry Sverdlove, chief technology officer of Bit9 offers a frank discussion about spear phishing - the most common technique used in today's advanced attacks.
Learn how to build a solid business case for your migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux so you can run leaner, innovate faster, be more flexible and own the New Now.
Social media isn't about you; it's about everything around you. As you consider how your customers want to communicate with you, social media is something that can't be ignored. But what should your strategy be? Is social media "just another channel?" What kind of a plan makes sense for your contact center and for your customers? Join our experts as they share their insight and research results.
Hardware tokens were a popular method of strong authentication in past years but the cumbersome provisioning and distribution tasks, high support requirements and replacement costs have limited their growth. The additional log-in steps that hardware tokens require and the resulting user frustrations have limited adoption and make them impractical for larger scale partner and customer applications.
Sponsored Links
