GPLv3 Wiki - New pages [en]

Lucent Public License version 1.02

qubodup — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:31:58 GMT

Summary:

The '''Lucent Public License 1.02''' was created by Lucent Technologies for the operating system Plan 9.

It has been approved by the [[Open Source Initiative]].<ref>[http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lucent1.02.php Lucent Public License Version 1.02] on [[OSI]]'s site</ref>

The Lucent Public License 1.02 is a free software license, but it is incompatible with the [[GNU GPL]] because of its choice of law clause. [[Free Software Foundation|We]] recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license.<ref>[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#lucent102 Various Licenses and Comments about Them]</ref>

== Incompatibility reasons ==

From the license text (8. GENERAL):

<blockquote>This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America.</blockquote>

== References ==

<references/>

== External links ==

* [http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/license.html Lucent Public License Version 1.02]

[[Category:GPLv2-incompatible free software licenses]]
[[Category:GPLv3-incompatible free software licenses]]

Bundled Data

arcriley — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:02:20 GMT

Summary:

Games are perhaps the most notable case where data, being a majority of the software, is required for it's function and non-trivial to create. In this test case there are three components; the engine, the game code, and the game data (levels, images, sound, storyline, etc).

Tom produces a game using a GPLv3-licensed engine. Following the example of [http://www.planeshift.it/license.html others] he releases the code of his game under the GPLv3 - must he also release the data for his game to be compliant with the license of the engine?

Sally designs a partial replacement for Tom's game data, some new artwork perhaps. The data is clearly intended to be loaded by the game, as if it were a plugin or module, using similar file names and artwork layout. Does the GPLv3 require her to license this derived work under the GPLv3?

Shark Games, Inc. thinks Tom's "Bullmen" 3d models are swell and want to use them in their next proprietary game. Does the GPLv3 prevent them from using his artwork (licensed under the GPLv3) in the same product, resulting in his artwork existing in the same process as proprietary code and proprietary artwork, without obtaining a separate license from Tom?

Enforcement

cnd — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:07:18 GMT

Summary:

==One person's experiences==
There are comments from my own personal experience of GPL Violations:

When requests are ignored/denied, you have no legal enforcement remedy.

When you find someone stealing GPL code, and ask them for the source,
and they either refuse, give you something bogus, or give you isolated
useless fragments without usage instructions - there is nothing *you*
can do about it.

The only way to actually compel someone in violation is to convince
one of the original authors of the source code to sue them. If
authors are even contactable, or still exist at all, this is an almost
impossible task.

I wish to make the following suggestion to remedy this problem.

The FSF people obtain a copyright/trademark on a particular phrase of
words - for example - "This Software is GPLvX protected(tm)". GPL
authors are asked to include this phrase in their source and (where
practical) in their object and executable output.

Then - when violations are encountered, there is now additional legal
action that can actually be taken.

Linux bios and rockbox

tuxcar — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:32:25 GMT

Summary:

Both Linux bios and rockbox have to link a binary VGA code with some gpl code...and that is illegal because it's a GPL violation
could we permit that in the GPLv3?

Partial conversion to GPLv3

jjvt — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:35:30 GMT

Summary:

Suppose X is a "GPL vension 2 or any later" licenced program. Is X (or modified version of it) allowed to be conveyed under GPLv3 with a special permission to do something that is allowed in GPLv2 but not in GPLv3?

GNU Wiki

bjwebb — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:14:56 GMT

Summary:

The GNU Wiki License is one which a wiki under the GFDL can change its license to. Nothing else is known about it.

Does anyone know what this license actually is?--[[User:bjwebb|bjwebb]] 08:14, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Source by Internet in China

ArneBab — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:12:56 GMT

Summary:

Let's assume you allow giving out the source by internet, when the binary comes via hardware-download - I mean: Post order.

Now the recipient sits in China and the chinese government "accidently" blocked the site with the source.

This would mean, the chinese people had no way at getting these sources, even though they could redistribute the binaries, and this would be supported by the GPL.

So I'd rather keep it clear, that a recipient must be able to get the source in the same way he/she got the binary (plus paying a fee equal to the cost of conveying the source).

TC and signed highscores

jjvt — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:50:37 GMT

Summary:

Suppose a programmer adds following features to a GPLv3 licensed game:

# Upon user request, generate a new keypair, and store private key using TC ("Trusted"/Treacherous Computing) sealed storage so, that only that version of the game can read it (if the game is changed, user needs to generete a new keypair). Store the public key unencrypted.
# If a private key generated above is available and current highscorefile is signed with it, sign it whenever it is modified by the game. If private key is not available or higscorefile is not signed with it, modified highscorefile is left unsigned.
# Upon user request send the signed highscorefile and the public key to online server of user's choice, use TC remote attestation to verify the version of the game and sign a cryptographic challenge with the private key (to prove that the key that the game generated is same as the key used to sign the highscorefile).

With these features user can prove that he/she didn't cheat with the highscores (for example modified them with a hex editor).

Programmer is unable to distribute the key needed to fake the remote attestation / recover the private key stored by the game, because he/she doesn't have it. It is in the TPM (= "trusted platfor module") of the user's computer and no one can get it out of there (maybe with the ecxeption of the manufacturer of the TPM). And the programmer doesn't even know who might end up being a user of the game if it's for example placed on a public web site.

Which of the added features violate the current draft of GPLv3?
Which of them '''should''' violate the GPL?

If this relatively innocent use of DRM-like technology is allowed, is it possible to avoid also allowing more harmfull uses of DRM? On the other hand, if it is disallowed, isn't it a restriction on what features a program can have?

Belt and suspenders

pelliott — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:39:10 GMT

Summary:

Company A is a redistributor of the program. It obeys all of the usual requirements except for the unclear question below. Company B makes noises that it has patent claims against the program. Company B is not an author or conveyor of the program.

Company A maintains that all patent claims against the program are invalid because of defenses like prior art, not original, etc.

Nevertheless, company A obtains an agreement that Company B will not sue Company A or its customers, but not the whole world. The agreement is carefully written so that Company A does not admit that company B has any valid patent claims against the program.

In spite of this, the agreement is still valuable to company A because:
* It is expensive to be sued, even if you are in the right and win.
* The FUD factor.

So company A can be sincere in its position of redundant protection.

Quoting from GPLv3:

"For example, if you accept a patent license that prohibits royalty-free conveying by those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program."

Well, the agreement does not prohibit royalty-free conveying by those who receive copies directly or indirectly through company A. It simply does not say anything on this point. It does, however, protect Company A and its customers who run the program without protecting anyone else.

The agreement between Company A and Company B is like the GPL in some weird respects. The GPL does not say anything about the $750 to $30,000 that you might have to pay if you don't abide by its terms. Title 17 of the US code does that. It simply fails to protect you if you do not abide by its terms. Similarly, the agreement between company A and Company B does not prohibit anything or say what happens to non customers of company A. It simply fails to protect them.

Company A maintains that company B's patent claims (if any) are invalid and that fact protects downstream conveyors. It too bad that company A's non customers do not have the additional protection that Company A's customers do.

Company A is saying everyone is protected because they have a belt. (The patent claims are invalid).

It is just too bad that everyone does not have suspenders as well. (The agreement).

Question: Is company A a GPLv3 violator?

Please quote the specific text of GPLv3 that makes Company A a violator because I can not find it.

You might think that this part of section 11 will do it:

"If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a non-sublicensable patent license that is not generally available to all, you must either (1) act to shield downstream users against the possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects you, or (2) ensure that anyone can copy the Corresponding Source of the covered work, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means."

But that won't work either. Company A uses (2) above. They put the source code on line “under the terms of this license.” They rely on the fact that Company B's patents are invalid to satisfy the “under the terms of this License” phrase. Company A is saying that anyone can "run the Program" or “copy and convey a work based on the program” because Company B's patents are invalid. Therefore “anyone” doesn't need no stinken' agreement from Company B. Thus (2) is satisfied.

You might think the first paragraph of Section 11 will help:

"You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under this License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting party will not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's essential patent claims in the material that the party conveyed, against you, arising from your exercise of rights under this License. If you convey a covered work, you similarly covenant to all recipients, including recipients of works based on the covered work, not to assert any of your essential patent claims in the covered work."

This does not help either! All "essential patent claims" are held by company B. But company B is not a conveyor of the program and it has not modified or used the program in any way, thus company B has no need to agree to the GPL. But Company A the conveyor, (who does agree to the GPL), does not have any patent claims!

What would be the answer to this question under GPL v2?

Although, this scenario was inspired by the recent Novell-Microsoft deal, it should be considered as written, that is abstractly. I do not know that all that I have assumed about Companies A and B is true of the real world Novell-Microsoft deal; They are keeping some of the terms secret. I do believe that the scenario I have envisioned is plausible. Something like it will probably happen sometime.

I have just learned that in the real Novell-Microsoft deal, only Novell's customers are given a patent license. This is the way the deal tries avoids the "for example" sentense of GPL v2 section 7. But in this hypothetical situation Company A actually receives a patent license from Company B and draft GPL v3 does not stop it! This is possible because, in the "for example" sentense "would not permit" has been changed to "prohibits". God only knows what "would not permit" was supposed to mean in GPL V2.

This situation will likely be important in the future. Companies collect patents, especially invalid patents and trade them like baseball cards. They are bargaining chips in a FUD war. Companies don't like to try to enforce their patents, especially if they are invalid.

Therefore, there are many dubious patents that have not been tested and likely never will be tested. So the described situation may well be common.

See also
[http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20061107194320461&title=draft%20GPL%20v3%20is%20vulnerable%20to%20this%20kind%20of%20deal%21&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c501295 the following reply on Groklaw] and
[http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20061107194320461&title=The+authors+of+GPLv3+were+aware+of+this%21&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=501295#c501464 this reply to the reply].

I apologize if previous versions of this test case were too strident. I was concerned to make sure the message was received.

Public Domain in the middle

vstarre — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:33:53 GMT

Summary:

Dramatis Personae:

; Alice: An employee at HugeCo Software.
; Bob: The author of a GPL'd alternative to HugeCo's main product.
; Carol: A programmer with need for both tools.
; David: A non-programmer with need for both tools.

Carol writes an interface between Bob's software and Alice's software. It is possibly entered into the Public Domain or released as proprietary software.
David can then use this interface regardless if its proprietary or public domain. But he cannot distribute it with Bob's program, since it would violate the GPL. David may or may not have the ability to distribute Carol's interface along with Bob's because of any limitation's Alice's copyright on the proprietary package holds, not just because of the GPL.

; Can Alice write the interface herself and distribute it under the GPL?: No, since it requires her proprietary software, it is GPL incompatable.

If Alice wrote the interface herself and entered it into the public domain or any non-copyleft, GPL-compatible license, then Alice can distribute the interface, and can distribute alongside the Bob's GPL alternative, or her proprietary original.

News articles

ciaran — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:06:01 GMT

Summary:

Here is a place to collect links to news articles about GPLv3. This could be useful for quoting or checking an article, or for reviewing the status of public discussion to see what might need to be clarified. For a list of materials specifically aimed at explaining the goals and process for updating GPLv3, see [[Reusable texts]].

Ordered by date, with the newest articles at the top.
*EN:2007-07-05: [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/07-05statement.mspx Microsoft Statement About GPLv3]
*EN:2007-05-29: [http://community.linux.com/community/07/05/17/1640207.shtml?tid=41&tid=12 Eben Moglen: MS should remove patents from Novell agreement (video)]
*EN:2007-05-29: [http://news.com.com/Novell+worries+that+GPL+3+could+foil+Microsoft+pact/2100-7344_3-6187127.html?tag=nefd.top Novell worries that GPL 3 could foil Microsoft pact]
*EN:2007-05-28: [http://community.linux.com/community/07/05/17/1616214.shtml?tid=41&tid=12 Eben Moglen: GPLv3 not about MS and Novell (video)]
*EN:2007-03-29: [http://lwn.net/Articles/227313/ LWN: The third GPLv3 draft]
*EN:2007-03-28: [http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=32734 Latest Proposed Draft of GPLv3 Gets Mixed Reviews]
*EN:2007-03-23: [http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651 Clearing up anti-GPL3 FUD]
*EN:2007-02-12: [http://news.com.com/GPL+3+release+could+slip+past+March/2100-7344_3-6158453.html GPL 3 release could slip past March], CNET News.com
* EN: 2007-01-18: [http://news.com.com/2061-10808_3-6151276.html Connecting the dots: GPLv3 for Solaris?], CNET News.com
* EN: 2007-01-16: [http://news.com.com/Torvalds+Hot+air+in+debates+on+GPL,+content+control/2100-7344_3-6150472.html Torvalds: 'Hot air' in debates on GPL, content control], CNET News.com
* EN: 2007-01-08: [http://www.linfo.org/tivoization.html The Truth About Tivoization], The Linux Information Project
* EN: 2007-01-04: [http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/07/01/04/153236.shtml MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3], Slashdot
* EN: 2006-11-02: [http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/73373/ The GPLv3 Debate: Focusing On the Issues], LXer
* EN: 2006-11-01: [http://tllts.org/mirror.php?fname=tllts_165-11-01-06.ogg Audio of phone interview of Richard Stallman], Patrick Davila of the Linux Link Tech Show
* EN: 2006-10-23: [http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2006/10/gplv3-what-richard-stallman-said.html GPLv3: What Richard Stallman Said], Glyn Moody
* EN: 2006-10-20: [http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238 Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions], Kernel Trap
* EN: 2006-10-19: [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,,1925317,00.html GPL backers agree to disagree], Guardian
* EN: 2006-10-17: [http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1225124,00.htmlMySQL's Marten Mickos on GPLv3 and automated enterprise monitoring]
* EN: 2006-10-15: [http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-10-13-018-26-OP-LL Who's Driving That Bus?], Linux Today
* EN: 2006-09-22: [http://kerneltrap.org/node/7160 The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3] - Linux kernel developers concerns on GPLv3 discussion draft 2, kerneltrap.org
* EN: 2006-09-07 [http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2013471,00.asp Embedded Linux and GPLv3], extremetech

Additional terms and revised gpl

jjvt — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:59:02 GMT

Summary:

Consider this scenario:

GoodApp is licenced GPLv3+ (ie. "GPL version 3 or any later") without additional requrements (section 7b). Suppose EvilCorp finds a loophole in GPL and writes a version of GoodApp that has additional restrictions that are allowed in section 7b (maybe because of some odd court decision etc.) but violates the spirit of GPL. Let's call EvilCorp's version of GoodApp EvilApp. Fsf responds by writing and publishing GPL version 3.1 that don't allow such restriction.

Which of the following happends according to current GPLv3 draft? Which of them should happend?

# EvilApp cannot be upgraded to GPLv3.1 despite it is licenced "GPL version 3 or any later".
# EvilApp can be upgraded to GPLv3.1, but the restrictions can't be taken out, even when they contradict GPLv3.1.
# EvilApp can be upgraded to GPLv3.1 and the restrictions can then be removed thus infridging EvilCorp's copyright.

PHP license, version 3.01

ashawley — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:01:49 GMT

Summary:

The PHP license has two restrictions on using the name "PHP":

: ''The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission.''

and using the name PHP in software package names

: ''Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission [...]. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"''

These requirements in some ways fall in the accepted "Additional Terms" that the second draft of the GPLv3 provides, including:

: ''terms that require that the origin of the material they cover not be misrepresented''

and

: ''terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not be used for publicity purposes without express permission, other than in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark law''

However, the second draft of the GPLv3 prohibits the following additional terms:

: ''requirements regarding changes to the name of the work''

which conflicts with the PHP license's prohibition on using "PHP" as a name for the work.

* http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt

----
Back to [[Compatible licenses]].

GNU General Public License version 2

ashawley — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:48:52 GMT

Summary:

The new version of the GNU General Public License will be incompatible with the old version. This seems ironic, but it is the expected and necessary result of a major revision to the license. If there were no qualititative changes needed, then there would be no need for a revision.

The changes to the license come in two flavors. Some changes are clarifications of legal character that do not change either the scope and therefore the comptability of the license. As the GPLv2 said, "Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version". Other changes add new requirements to better protect the software's freedom. As the GPLv2 continues, "differ in detail to address new problems or concerns". The rationale for the first draft of the GPLV3 described:

: ''In a few parts of the revised license, we have reacted to alarming developments by adding certain new requirements, as in our section on DRM. These requirements are narrowly drawn and are directed at preventing the mechanism of freedom from being turned against itself.''[http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html]

Works under the GPLv2 are only compatible with the GPLv3 if they are upgraded ''manually'' by the copyright holder(s), or if the work was originally licensed in the manner section 9 of the GPLv2 described:

: ''If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.''

----
Back to [[Compatible licenses]].