GPL 3.0: v. (for Vendetta)

With the release of the most recent discussion draft today, one thing is immediately clear: this third version of the General Public License can be simply written “GPL v.” – where “v” stands not for “version” but for “vendetta.”

There’s little doubt that this GPL 3 draft is a vendetta against the patent non-assertion agreement we saw in the Microsoft and Novell deal. But it is also aimed at the use of technological protection measures like digital rights management. Overall, these new additions will hurt the open source software community by elevating code over the desires of the marketplace.

Turning the Four Freedoms into the Ten Commandments

The GPL 3 draft is no longer just about protecting the four freedoms. Instead, it preaches about what can’t be done with software - thou shall not use DRM, thou shall not partner with proprietary software companies, etc. The draft contains provisions that block the use of anticircumvention technologies and patent non-assertion agreements. It’s the patent provision that attempts to strike a dagger at the heart of the collaboration between Microsoft and Novell.

According to the new GPL Vendetta - 

Your permission to convey a covered work terminates if you are a party to an arrangement under which a third party grants, to any of the parties who receive the covered work from you, a patent license (a) in connection with a specific copy of the covered work, or (b) primarily for and in connection with a specific copy of a product or compilation that contains the covered work, if the patent license does not include within the scope of its coverage…the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License. 

The new GPL specifically tries to prohibit deals like the Microsoft and Novell collaborative arrangement. Under GPL Vendetta, a deal like Microsoft’s legally binding promise not to assert its IP rights against Novell’s SuSE Linux would prevent Novell from continuing to distribute SuSE - and have the effect of putting Novell out of business. 

Interestingly, the draft does include a grandfather clause for the Novell Microsoft deal itself – but even that may not hold up over the long haul. The original deal can work, but if SuSE were to add a new GPLv3 based feature that wasn’t covered under the original agreement, it could reduce the original deal to ashes.

GPL 3 Elevates Code over Consumers and Developers

If this seems draconian - well, it is. Richard Stallman’s Free Software Foundation is positioned to create a morally absolute position on “right and wrong” when it comes to software code. They believe that believe that community is king—or at least, the right kind of “community.” But this new iteration of the GPL creates a gated community to the detriment of the community as a whole.

Let’s take Microsoft’s non-assertion agreement, which legally prevents Microsoft from asserting its patent rights against individual contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is included in the SuSE Linux Enterprise platform, including SuSE Linux Enterprise Server and SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. In a previous blog post, I discuss how this arrangement helps Novell’s OpenSUSE.org developers.

Similar deals could be done with other companies besides Novell. But GPL Vendetta puts the kibosh on non-assertion agreements unless it is for all GPL code. This blanket immunity is impracticable, and Stallman knows it. Consumers will lose out in this sort of arrangement.

There’s No Reason to “Upgrade” to GPL 3

Technology consumers are notorious for their desire to upgrade to the latest version of a product. When it comes to GPL Vendetta, software developers may want resist the upgrade urge. The new GPL is more complicated and harder to administer than the previous version.

The patent non-assertion clause is just one of the controversial new additions. Another new provision is Section 3, which prohibits the use of technological protection measures like DRM. Specifically:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any Intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technical measures.

Again, this is another example where GPL Vendetta strays from open source proponent into anti-intellectual property ideology. Given the legal cloud that will linger over the patent section, GPL proponents should just stick with version 2.

Or migrate to another open source license. The FSF doesn’t have a monopoly on community licenses, and there are plenty of choices for the open source market.

A Bonfire of the Vanities?

As Jonathan Zuck predicted in a CNET op-ed, we’re seeing the “bonfire of the vanities” play out: “Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have every right to continue their ideological crusade against proprietary software, but will anyone follow?”

That’s the question – will anyone adopt this licensing model? Because the GPL is supposed to be about free as in freedom, not V for Vendetta.

Comments

[Tim]

Thou shall not partner with proprietary software companies.

Braden, as I commented over at TLF, I think you're misunderstanding the goals of the FSF. The FSF has never objected to proprietary companies partnering with free software companies. What programmers who adopt the GPL are worried about is companies using the patents to block them or others from using their own code. The GPL achieves this by requiring that if a company purchases a patent license for itself, the license must extend to everyone. That ensures that the software is free for everyone to use on an equal footing.

I don't understand what's "impracticable" about respecting the wishes of software creators. You certainly wouldn't consider it "impractical" when proprietary software creators have license agreements that limit how their software is used. Why aren't free software creators equally entitled to decide how their software may or may not be used? And if free software firms are concerned about exclusive patent agreements, why aren't they entitled to require to require that anyone who uses their software not enter into any?

[Mark Blafkin]

Actually Tim you're the one who is completely misunderstanding the goals of the FSF. They are very, very clear about what they believe, and you're either confused or purposely conflating the Open Source and the Free Software communities - something for which Mr. Stallman would beat you about the head.

Thankfully, Mr. Stallman wrote a lovely little piece for you entitled "Why Open Source” misses the point of Free Software."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

As Mr Stallman says, "For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution."

They summarily reject the idea of proprietary companies partnering with free software companies because proprietary software companies are immoral in the eyes of the FSF. If you still don't believe me, I suggest you read this piece from Stallman on the 20th Anniversary of the Free Software movement:

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/1146229

Tim, perhaps you should do a little more reading before you start writing.

[Tim Lee]

My use of the word "objected" was too strong. What I should have said is that the FSF has never tried to prevent free software companies from cooperating with proprietary software companies to make their systems interoperable. They still prefer that the user using proprietary software switch to free software, and they might not approve of collaboration between proprietary and free software companies, but the GPL doesn't make any attempt to prevent such cooperation.

The GPL is fundamentally about freedom, and it would obviously be hypocritical for them to try to use the GPL as a way to restrict users' freedom to use non-free software. Rather, the goal of both the DRM and patent sections of the GPL are designed to ensure that end users of GPLed software have the freedom to examine, modify, and redistribute any copies of GPLed software they receive. Stallman might not like it if that software is used alongside proprietary software, but nothing in the GPL seems designed to prohibit them from doing so.

I'm still interested in an answer to my question: why so much hostility toward free software developers' freedom to set the terms on which their softwaretheir "intellectual property," if you willis used? Are only proprietary software developers entitled to see their rights protected?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Why should I listen to ACT's opinion about free software? Come back when your companies' software is as free as GPL 2, and we'll talk. Until then, you're a mere hypocrite.

[Hypocrite Harry]

>Why should I listen to ACT's opinion about free software? Come back when your companies' software is as free as GPL 2, and we'll talk. Until then, you're a mere hypocrite.

Matt,

(1) You should listen to the ACT's opinion on free software because like it or not, as the corporate world goes, so does free software. The most utilized free software as we speak is the software that has received the most corporate funding.

(2) A lot of the software development companies that the ACT represents will probably never significantly switch over to free software development because they are attempting to innovate in order to create advantages over their competition. They maintain any advantage they attain via trade secret, patent or copyright protection. As the innovation is inevitably absorbed by competitors, it possess less of a strategic value for a company and is at that point more likely to be 'open sourced'.

So it is a bit of Adam Smith in that desire for profit drives innovation. Investment in innovation requires the potential for profit.

I realize there are exceptions in this general theory (Open Source projects that are driving innovation), but the primary enabler of innovation is investment and that investment is only motivated by some guarantee of protection of assets.

The interesting aspect of all of this is that free software and proprietary software cannot divorce themselves from each other from here on out and thus this whole GPLv3 discussion is really only chapter 1 of an ongoing fruitful relationship.