OSNews

Well, its not JUST about MS and Novell. This type of thing has happened else where and thats why the license is changing. Remember, this type of clause was in the GPLv3 long before MS and Novell announced their deal. Its just that it wasnt broad enough to stop all the sidestepping at the time.

I read it to myself as "the gplv3 is not about the ms/novell deal"

My only excuse is that I had not had my first cup of coffee when I posted.

not surprising...

"""
I don't disagree with RMS but don't tell me that part of the gpl v3 is not to block deals like the MS/Novell deal.
"""

The FSF does love its word games. This is even slicker than their claim that the GPLv3 drafts don't have anti-DRM clauses.

I, too, like the verbiage put in to address the MS/Novell deal.

But when it comes to putting spin on something with doubletalk and word games, FSF is at least as skilled at it as most for-profit corporations.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck?

This is even slicker than their claim that the GPLv3 drafts don't have anti-DRM clauses.

The latest draft doesn't have any anti-DRM language whatsoever. The only restriction on the functionality of a covered work is that it may not implement technology that prevents the recipient from installing and running a derivative work -- unless it is distributed with any instructions (e.g. keys) that are necessary to do so, or if the code is only intended to run from ROM. The current language protects the right to modify and redistribute covered works. But it does not in any way prevent covered works from implementing restrictions on the use of proprietary media.

The free software community spoke out in support of Big Media's right to choose their own licensing terms and of the free software community's right to develop software that respects these terms. We may not agree with their philosophy, but we have to respect their rights if we are to expect the same in return. The FSF got the message and scaled back their intent to protect the Four Freedoms only as they pertain to the covered software and not as they pertain to the data with which it interacts.

The FSF flip-flopped. They changed their minds, and they did so because they listened to the community. It isn't always politically expedient to change your position, but what is important is that you continue to hold true to your principles. In this case, the FSF was able to find a position that works for the community without compromising the intent of the license. In this sense, the community model of the drafting process has worked in much the same way as it works for software development. We used inspired leadership to set the culture and agenda, and we used open participation to drive consensus and come to a solution that we can collectively support.

But when it comes to putting spin on something with doubletalk and word games, FSF is at least as skilled at it as most for-profit corporations.

The FSF works the way it does because it sees free software as a social movement, and it operates accordingly. See this post for more:

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17989&comment_id=243922

You see, it's about putting the fear into people so that together we can overcome our challenges -- or defeat our enemies -- and change the world. It sounds totally ridiculous to many intellectuals, but this is the way you get people on your side. This is how leaders establish and assert their power. We like to think that society has come so far that we can all seek enlightenment and live in peace, but without simple and unifying half-truths that bring us together in civil societies, we are in fact a bunch of greedy, ignorant jerks.

If you don't believe the hype, at least put your support behind the fairy-tale that leads to the most productive and peaceful society. Our hopes and dreams are more powerful than our curiosity and wisdom.

"""
The latest draft doesn't have any anti-DRM language whatsoever. The only restriction on the functionality of a covered work is that it may not implement technology that prevents the recipient from installing and running a derivative work -- unless it is distributed with any instructions (e.g. keys) that are necessary to do so, or if the code is only intended to run from ROM.
"""

It prevents the DRM from being effective for the manufacturers likely intended use.

And I'm fine with that. Likewise the anti-MS/Novell clause.

But no matter how you spin it, in practical reality they *are* anti-DRM and
anti-MS/Novell clauses.

My objection is only to the idea of trying to spin them as *not* being such.

I like FOSS for both practical and idealistic reasons. I grok it being, in part, a social movement. But I prefer my idealistic social movements without the "spin".

I like FOSS for both practical and idealistic reasons. I grok it being, in part, a social movement. But I prefer my idealistic social movements without the "spin".

You are simply not acknowledging the full picture. The media will try to spin whatever they get no matter what. What's wrong with the FSF insisting on precise language to minimize others turning the FSF's own words against them?

Moreover, your comparison to corporations does not hold water. The FSF operates out in the open with a long public record of activity and with grassroots funding. Corporations have no conscience, thrive on secrecy, have no human face, and use far, far more money to pay the media to mold public opinion. Advertising alone suffices to make the comparison ridiculous.

You regularly attack both the FSF and Groklaw, both of which are important means of promoting free software. If you could point to a viable alternative which has as its main aim the promotion of the four software freedoms as a social objective, I would be eager to consider it. Otherwise, I can only surmise that you do not believe that software should be free (maybe instead you just believe that open source is a superior development method). Moreover, to oppose the free software message--which is not the same as promoting nonfree software, I realize--you can only resort to attacking the messengers and not the message.

Personally, I think the problem is largely pragmatic in terms of clauses like those attempting to curtail the use of DRM / deals like the MS-Novell one, etc. I think that rule-based systems have a tendency to eventually collapse under the weight of their own "special-case" exceptions/gap-fills.

E.g., I create a system of rules. Someone finds and exploits a loophole. So I come with a special-case rule to address that specific loophole. But adding that special-cases increases the complexity of the system - and inevitably adds new loopholes, which require further special-case rules, which create more loopholes, ad infinitum.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck?

Simply put, GPL3 != MS/Novell type of deal ban

Indeed, the "duck" occupies less than 5% of the license text.

Yet you are suggesting that they say that the whole license is about the 5%, that the pond ecosystem is about the duck?

This dog don't hunt.

Of the sections that are new, how much of that is duck?

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Or perhaps you are not disagreeing. I can't tell.

No one in their right mind would take the position that the entirety of the GPLv3, the drafs of which predate the MS/Novell deal by months and months, is *all* about the MS/Novell deal. Ignore the poorly worded title of the article and watch the ogg theora video.

My objection is entirely to the idea of trying to spin the "Anti-MS/Novell deal" part of the license as not being anti-MS/Novell deal.

RMS was quite explicit about the new verbiage being in direct response to that deal, although it is, of course, intended to address the general case.

Why do we have to play this game every time a GPL3 article is posted? There is no anti-drm clause. You are allowed to distribute DRM protected GPL3 software ONLY if the DRM doesn't prevent the user from practising their rights that the licence gives them".

The specific section that you are probably referring to is more correctly termed "user rights removal through technical means clause". This section is designed for ANY technical means. DRM is one form of technical mean for restricting the user rights.

The ONLY legal way to distribute another party's GPL3 software AND prevent your users from modifying it is to burn the software onto ROM storage.

Edited 2007-05-30 02:34

"We were already concerned [...] the possibility that a distributor might receive a patent licence which did not explicitly impose limits on downstream recipients but simply failed to protect them."

I'm trying to parse this, and I know all the words, but they make no sense to me.

He was concerned that people who have a license might not 'impose enough limits' on people who didn't have a license? Or is he expecting people who go ahead and get a license to 'protect' all the users who didn't get a license?

He was concerned that people who have a license might not 'impose enough limits' on people who didn't have a license? Or is he expecting people who go ahead and get a license to 'protect' all the users who didn't get a license?

There's the case where a patent license has--in writing--(additional) limits on downstream recipients. Then there's a second case they are concerned with here where a patent license has--instead of or in addition to limits--protection which does not apply to someone downstream. E.g., the patent licenses which protect Novell customers but no one to whom they might distribute.

Both cases are incompatible with the way the GPL copyleft works: to guarantee that all rights granted by the GPL to the distributor pass, in full, to any receiver.

Edited 2007-05-29 21:14

"I'm trying to parse this, and I know all the words, but they make no sense to me. "

<cynicism>
You're not supposed to understand. If you did, how would the lawyers get paid?
</cynicism>

Edited 2007-05-30 03:48

They try to create a license that will actually hold up in court. Most EULAs don't (at least in Europe).

BS. If they are creating a license that is to be used for community development, then they damn well better listen to the community.

But why is Eben trying to shift focus away from the important parts of the license? If the other things mattered so much we would be arguing about them.

Edited 2007-05-29 19:54

There was a rather large controversy of Microsoft restricting the us of Vista under virtual machines. It shouldn't be surprising that open source developers and users find the introduction of a new license quite controversial since the freedom of the licenses was a large reason to switch to the software.