All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
31 Jul 2006
A second draft of the general public licence (GPL) version 3 fails to address several key problems, critics claim.
The new draft was released last Thursday and introduced several changes to the way the licence handles digital rights management (DRM) technology and patents.
The general public licence is the most prolific open source licence and among things is chosen to govern the Linux kernel.
The initial GPL3 draft prohibited the use of any DRM technology in open source technology. The current proposal has watered down the DRM provisions and is now only seeking to ensure that developers can access and modify GPL licensed software.
"The clarified DRM section preserves the spirit of the original GPL, which forbids adding additional unfree restrictions to free software," The Free Software Foundation (FSF) said in a statement.
"GPLv3 does not prohibit the implementation of DRM features, but prevents them from being imposed on users in a way that they cannot remove."
The licence's patent provision has been changed too. The first draft required that users of GPL software grant a default licence to the application for any patents that the user owned.
"We have replaced the express patent licence grant with a covenant not to assert patent claims, and the new paragraph on reservation of implied rights is not limited to implied patent licences," the Free Software Foundation said about the second draft.
Linux leader Linux Torvalds had rejected the first draft, calling some of the proposed changes "insane".
The second draft has not changed much, Torvalds said on the Groklaw legal website. He has confirmed being the author of the posting.
"All the changes I've seen have been about largely stylistic issues - wording changes, things like that. I don't think any input on any really fundamental disagreement has been on the table."
He went on to explain that he choose the GPL for Linux because it promotes fairness and sharing of code. The FSF, however, is using the licence to address issues like DRM and patents.
"The GPLv3 is much inferior. It no longer works in the 'fairness' sense. It's purely a firebrand, and only good for the extremist policies of the FSF," Torvalds said.
"That's why I think the GPLv2 is much better. It allows us all to agree to just work together, without making it a religion."
Latest stories from Open Source
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
A senior C# developer is required by a leading investment...
A senior JAVA developer is required by a leading financial...
A leading investment bank are looking for an AGILE JAVA...
A senior C# WPF F# developer is required by a leading...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
If Sun uses the GPLv3, watch Linus follow
It seems obvious to me that Linus is standing against the GPLv3 simply because he thinks that it may lessen Linux's popularity. This is obviously a shallow and near-sighted thought on his side, and he will surely change if Sun uses the GPLv3 for their famous OS. If Sun takes the GPLv3, just watch Linus follow.
Posted by: Jorn Nehme 06 Dec 2006
Preserve fairness and innovation
I would surely agree with Linus. Whatever maybe the final draft of GPLv3 the most important thing is to NOT be myopic and Ensuring Fairness and Freedom of Innovation. Hard, either~or positions may have no meaning or relevance in the future and such religious approach has always been detrimental to the spirit of FOSS.
Posted by: Girish 31 Jul 2006