Note: Currently new registrations are closed, if you want an account Contact us
Difference between revisions of "Bangalore/BMSCE/Understanding GPL version 3"
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
#[[User:Ck.raju|CK Raju]] | #[[User:Ck.raju|CK Raju]] | ||
#[[User:Sujithh|Sujith Haridasan]] | #[[User:Sujithh|Sujith Haridasan]] | ||
#[[ Jayesh @ Bangalore ]] | |||
[[Category:Events|2007/05/20]] [[Category:Bangalore Events]] | [[Category:Events|2007/05/20]] [[Category:Bangalore Events]] | ||
Revision as of 13:37, 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)
| In the Novell-Microsoft agreement, a loophole was constructed by Microsoft and Novell's attorneys, one so new to us that the first two public drafts of GPL3 contained no provision to repair it. This experience shows that GPL must continue to grow just to stand still. To freeze on one version would act to erode its protections over time. Bruce Perens |
Pre-requisites
- Read the third discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3.
- Read the discussion on GPLv3, Linux and GPLv2 compatibility on Alison Randall's blog
- Bruce Perens clearing up FUD on GPLv3