First GPL v3 Discussion Draft Released
The Free Software Foundation has released the first discussion draft of Version 3 of the General Public License.
Notable among the new elements in this draft are:
- An aggressive stance against software patents. Software patent holders who distribute GPLv3′d programs would be granting a license to all downstream users to practice their patents. And software patent holders who sue over the use or modification of GPLv3′d software automatically lose the right to use that software.
- An aggressive stance against DRM. The draft license explicitly states that no GPLv3′d work ever “constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure,” and thus can never the the subject of a section 1201 circumvention claim.
Also notable is the impenetrability of certain sections. I’m glad this is the first draft, since there are a few sentences that I just can’t parse. The “propagation” / “distribution” dichotomy is giving me trouble, and I think section 7 will be a lot clearer once I figure out why it’s there in the first place.
Overall, however, this promises to be an excellent input into the lengthy, distributed “constitutional convention” of the free software movement the FSF plans.
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Linkblog Atom Feed
Is that bit about “no GPLv3′d work ever “constitutes part of an effective technological protection measure”” going to fly in court?
Say you sell me your 2002 Honda Civic. However our contract of sale says “the parties agree this is not the sale of a car, but in fact a horse”. I get pulled over and arrested for driving without a license. I point at our contract saying they can’t charge me, because this isn’t a car, so I don’t need a license. Judge laughs at me and I’m going to jail/receiving a hefty fine.
Isn’t the situation the same with the proposed GPL clause?
Comment by falconred — January 22, 2006 @ 2:06 am
Not quite.
For criminal 1201 violations, it might be basically like your analogy — but the prosecutor will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an effective TPM, and the contract clause could be a handy source of doubt.
The real impact is in civil 1201 actions, since the party who’s suing will also be a party to the GPL. The plaintiff’s statement that the software isn’t a TPM will be admissible in court, and they’ll have the burden of overcoming that evidence — which will really look silly to a jury.
Further, the defendant would probably be able to prove that his conduct was authorized because, in the same paragraph, the GPL draft states that “distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data”
Comment by Joe Gratz — January 22, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
Thank you sir, I knew I was missing something. My head gets stuck in crim-law these days.
Oh, and do you have new business cards yet?
Comment by falconred — January 23, 2006 @ 5:49 am