It is reported at http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that Linus Torvalds has sharply criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior" to GPLv2.
Several elements in the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make it plain that the shift is from "freedom" to "slavery", "hate" and "fear". If the GPLv3 ever comes into effect with such terms, it may even make non-free licenses look very respectable.
I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am maintaining, so that modifications to the Calpp code base would be only under GPLv2 until further notice, to ensure a comfortable level of freedom for its developers and users.
The most important reason why most people appreciate the GPL are the four freedoms:
0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose 1: freedom to study how the program works with source code and adapt it to your use 2: freedom to redistribute copies and 3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
The GPLv2 has implemented the freedoms as license conditions giving rights to licensees to enjoy the freedoms listed above, and has not only stood the test of time, but has created a good ecosystem of free software where developers, users, businesses and governments have benefited.
GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and licensees to make the freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable. Many clauses in the draft GPLv3 are unintelligible and ambigious, giving open invitations for interpretations. Having provisions for "additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even worse, they would only help to curtail rights and make the freedoms illusory.
If the GPLv3 mission is alter the well known freedoms 0 to 3 substantially, then it is fairly important to discuss that in the first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
It is premature to discuss the GPLv3 draft, without arriving at a broad consensus on what fixes are required to the basic freedoms enjoyed by developers and licensees. I would request RMS and the FSF to first make a restatement of freedoms 0 to 3 before proceeding further with the GPLv3 process.
In India, most of the criticism about the GPL has been about making the freedoms more practically available by making the GPL more enforceable.
Many have asked if the GPL violates the "Rule against Perpetuity"
Most GPLed software is freely available for download by the public from the Internet, and therefore, the terms in the GPLv2 that ensure perpetuity for public benefit, advancement of knowledge, commerce and other benefits to mankind make it valid and enforceable. This issue in fact holds the key to the future progress of the GPL. Focus and attention on the public nature of code contributions and examining ways and means to strengthen the distribution of computer programs and modifications on the Internet with better licensing conditions should help. If the GPLv3 draft process ignores real issues, and side-tracks into the private domain, it may just end up there, as a self-defeating meaningless exercise for all of us.
Regards, Ramanraj K
On 7/31/06, Ramanraj K ramanraj.k@gmail.com wrote:
It is reported at http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that Linus Torvalds has sharply criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior" to GPLv2.
Several elements in the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make it plain that the shift is from "freedom" to "slavery", "hate" and "fear". If the GPLv3 ever comes into effect with such terms, it may even make non-free licenses look very respectable.
I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am maintaining, so that modifications to the Calpp code base would be only under GPLv2 until further notice, to ensure a comfortable level of freedom for its developers and users.
The most important reason why most people appreciate the GPL are the four freedoms:
0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose 1: freedom to study how the program works with source code and adapt it to your use 2: freedom to redistribute copies and 3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
The GPLv2 has implemented the freedoms as license conditions giving rights to licensees to enjoy the freedoms listed above, and has not only stood the test of time, but has created a good ecosystem of free software where developers, users, businesses and governments have benefited.
GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and licensees to make the freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable. Many clauses in the draft GPLv3 are unintelligible and ambigious, giving open invitations for interpretations. Having provisions for "additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even worse, they would only help to curtail rights and make the freedoms illusory.
If the GPLv3 mission is alter the well known freedoms 0 to 3 substantially, then it is fairly important to discuss that in the first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
It is premature to discuss the GPLv3 draft, without arriving at a broad consensus on what fixes are required to the basic freedoms enjoyed by developers and licensees. I would request RMS and the FSF to first make a restatement of freedoms 0 to 3 before proceeding further with the GPLv3 process.
It is not clear how the freedoms 0 to 3 will be curtailed by the GPLv3. If you have seen some modifications that do s, it will be useful to raise an alert. Can you explicate the words, or cluases that curtail the four freedoms?
Nagarjuna
Hello, There has been a discussion going on. Linus seems to be unhappy with gplv3. he has declared that linux kernel will remain at gplv2 The dicussion is herehttp://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060727140038810&title=Sorry%252C%2520Linus&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=465804 ________ Regards Nishan On 7/31/06, Dr. Nagarjuna G. nagarjun@gnowledge.org wrote:
On 7/31/06, Ramanraj K ramanraj.k@gmail.com wrote:
It is reported at http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that Linus Torvalds has sharply criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior" to GPLv2.
Several elements in the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make it plain that the shift is from "freedom" to "slavery", "hate" and "fear". If the GPLv3 ever comes into effect with such terms, it may even make non-free licenses look very respectable.
I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am maintaining, so that modifications to the Calpp code base would be only under GPLv2 until further notice, to ensure a comfortable level of freedom for its developers and users.
The most important reason why most people appreciate the GPL are the four freedoms:
0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose 1: freedom to study how the program works with source code and adapt it to your use 2: freedom to redistribute copies and 3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
The GPLv2 has implemented the freedoms as license conditions giving rights to licensees to enjoy the freedoms listed above, and has not only stood the test of time, but has created a good ecosystem of free software where developers, users, businesses and governments have benefited.
GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and licensees to make the freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable. Many clauses in the draft GPLv3 are unintelligible and ambigious, giving open invitations for interpretations. Having provisions for "additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even worse, they would only help to curtail rights and make the freedoms illusory.
If the GPLv3 mission is alter the well known freedoms 0 to 3 substantially, then it is fairly important to discuss that in the first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
It is premature to discuss the GPLv3 draft, without arriving at a broad consensus on what fixes are required to the basic freedoms enjoyed by developers and licensees. I would request RMS and the FSF to first make a restatement of freedoms 0 to 3 before proceeding further with the GPLv3 process.
It is not clear how the freedoms 0 to 3 will be curtailed by the GPLv3. If you have seen some modifications that do s, it will be useful to raise an alert. Can you explicate the words, or cluases that curtail the four freedoms?
Nagarjuna _______________________________________________ Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
here are the some more flames comming out from linus..
Torvalds says no to GPLv3
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/5148/53/
Torvalds unimpressed
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4670189671.html
Torvalds critical of new GPL draft
Dr. Nagarjuna G. wrote:
It is not clear how the freedoms 0 to 3 will be curtailed by the GPLv3. If you have seen some modifications that do s, it will be useful to raise an alert. Can you explicate the words, or cluases that curtail the four freedoms?
Freedom 0, "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose", seems to be twisted out of shape by the draft GPLv3.
GPLv2 says: "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
GPLv3 draft rewrites: "This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf."
The attempt to maintain distinction between "private" and "public" use of the program licensed is not easy and anyway only discriminatory. Is it that non-internet users can use free software for any purpose, but internet users who connect to the world wide web, have to loose that freedom?
Freedom 2 can easily be wiped out with additional terms that allow trademark conditions which would prevent simple redistributions to even friends and neighbours. The trademark claims made by ssh trademark owner upon openssh developers is a good lesson not to give room for needless and self-defeating disputes within the free software community.
Contributions could go up in flames or be appropriated by trademark owners with such additional terms.
There has been little or no debate on such issues - I do hope this invites opinions on the future shape of the GPL.
-Ramanraj K
-
Dr. Nagarjuna G. -
navaladi a -
Nishan Naseer -
Ramanraj K