Difference between revisions of "Bangalore/BMSCE/Understanding GPL version 3"

Revision as of 12:19, 16 May 2007

A discussion on GPL version 3 and its implications in the Free and Open Source community.

Date: 20th May 2007

Venue: BMS College of Engineering (directions to reach BMSCE)

Another oft-heard objection to GPL3 is "GPL 2 is good enough!". But GPL has never stood alone, it has always depended on the local interpretation of copyright and other law to give it force, and those things change over time.

When the GPL was written, there was no web, music came from phonograph records, video from tape, and rather than DRM there was rudimentary software "copy protection". The renaissance of microprocessors, software, the web and digital media worked a tremendous change in the law with many changes to copyright, patents, the nature of consent, contracts, tear-open licenses, and copyright permissions. And there have been many trials over those years that added interpretation to laws that GPL 2 depends upon. As the law changes, GPL must change to keep up with it, or it will become increasingly un-enforcible. Bruce Perens

Subtopics

Internationalization - new terms propagate and convey
Increased license compatibility
Incompatibility with GPLv2
Tivoisation/DRM

Confused objectors to GPL3 state that it won't allow the Linux kernel to be used on a system that implements DRM, and that GPL3 will compel manufacturers to "give away their keys". If Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers still believe this, they're wrong. Bruce Perens

Patents (Novell-Microsoft deal)

Pre-requisites

Participants

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Date: 20th May 2007
 Venue: [[Bangalore/BMSCE|BMS College of Engineering]] ([[Talk:Bangalore/BMSCE |directions to reach BMSCE]])
+{|style="background:#ffdead;"
+|-
+|Another oft-heard objection to GPL3 is "GPL 2 is good enough!". But GPL has never stood alone, it has always depended on the local interpretation of copyright and other law to give it force, and those things change over time.
+When the GPL was written, there was no web, music came from phonograph records, video from tape, and rather than DRM there was rudimentary software "copy protection". The renaissance of microprocessors, software, the web and digital media worked a tremendous change in the law with many changes to copyright, patents, the nature of consent, contracts, tear-open licenses, and copyright permissions. And there have been many trials over those years that added interpretation to laws that GPL 2 depends upon. As the law changes, GPL must change to keep up with it, or it will become increasingly un-enforcible. [http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651 Bruce Perens]
+|-
+|}
 ==Subtopics==
@@ Line 10: / Line 20: @@
 * Incompatibility with GPLv2
 * Tivoisation/DRM
+{|style="background:#ffdead;"
+|-
+|Confused objectors to GPL3 state that it won't allow the Linux kernel to be used on a system that implements DRM, and that GPL3 will compel manufacturers to "give away their keys". If Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers still believe this, they're wrong. [http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651 Bruce Perens]
+|-
+|}
 * Patents (Novell-Microsoft deal)
@@ Line 15: / Line 32: @@
 # Read the [http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2007-03-28.html third discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3].
 # Read the [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/gplv3_linux_and.html discussion on GPLv3, Linux and GPLv2 compatibility on Alison Randall's blog]
+# [http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651 Bruce Perens clearing up FUD on GPLv3]
 ==Participants==

Navigation menu

Difference between revisions of "Bangalore/BMSCE/Understanding GPL version 3"

Revision as of 12:19, 16 May 2007

Subtopics

Pre-requisites

Participants