FSF Releases the Final Draft of GPLv3

jrm,

not if the holding company grants a license back to Microsoft for use of all of its patents.

The MS stockholders would own stock in the new patent holding company, so they wouldn't care.

I think "GPL Busters, Inc" would be a better name than "Microsoft IP, Inc."

That or maybe "Section 11 loophole, thank you FSF, Inc."

Sander -

I think the real problem is the same as I said way back when -- and reflects the input of many lawyers:

A general license like the GPL can be a clumsy instrument for some things. Whatever the FSF may have wished to prevent, it also cares about preserving software freedom. I think they were concerned about the unintended consequences of their acts. I think they didn't want language that would inhibit legitimate activities that are consistent the freedoms on which the FSF was founded.

The closest analog I can think of is not wanting to be in a position to say something like:

"I'm sorry. The operation was a complete success but the patient died."

Quoting:If it weren't for that, you would violate the GPL by settling a lawsuit with a patent holding company.

Only if you were forced to pay per-copy license fees as part of the settlement. A settlement involving a one-time payment or anything else would be valid under GPLv3 (IANAL et. al.)

Quoting:I think they were concerned about the unintended consequences of their acts.

Probably. Thing is, I can't think of any unintended consequences that are solved by adding the "that is in the business of distributing software" part.

> not if the holding company grants a license back to Microsoft for use of all of its patents.

So MS is going to start a new entity, assign their patent rights, issue stock based on the % ownership of MS, and elect a board. Got it. Now about those contracts with Novell... wait a minute, the new entity doesn't have a contract with Novell. I wonder about the wording of those contracts... will they have to renegotiate?

It gets really convoluted. I'm not too worried about it.

> Only if you were forced to pay per-copy license fees as part of the settlement.

You're probably right. But I would agree to anything, as long as I don't have to read that license again right now ;-)

jrm: no need. It's also in my quote above:

Quoting:under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work

That's legalize for a per-copy license.

>Thing is, I can't think of any unintended consequences that are solved by adding the "that is in the business of distributing software" part.

I wonder if that's intended to allow you to distribute software without fear of violating non-software patents? I am, at the moment, at a loss to see exactly how that would be a problem, but, imagine for a moment, that somebody made a deal with a graphics card maker or maybe a deal for blu-ray the second or whatever it might be.

I don't know... I have a little trouble seeing how that would a) work and b) need an exception because I don't readily see software infringing hardware patents.

Sigh. Beats me, but I'll bet somebody out there is doing something that never occurred to us and raised an objection.

Google to the rescue. So he's not an attorney, but it's all I could find.

From a talk by Richard Stallman in Brussels...

"So we put in a condition: "this paragraph applies only if the patent holder makes a business of distributing software". Patent parasites don't. As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph."

The link is http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcr...

>As a result, the victim of the patent parasites is not put in violation by this paragraph."

But doesn't that seem a bit odd?

Why would you afford patent parasites a higher status than Microsoft? Microsoft may be vile, but still manages to produce and do something.

Patent parasites have only child molesters to look down upon.

The "patent parasite" hasn't distributed any code. He's an untouchable. The only entity you can punish is the one that enters into the agreement with the "patent parasite".

I'm too tired to go back and reword that. Consider it a question. Is that a valid interpretation?

>The "patent parasite" hasn't distributed any code. He's an untouchable. The only entity you can punish is the one that enters into the agreement with the "patent parasite".

All well and good, but that wording is not aimed at the one granting the patent licenses. It's aimed at the one getting them --- which would be the software distributor.

If the goal is to ensure that everyone has the same protection from patent lawsuits, I fail to see the distinction between Microsoft and any other parasite. It's either a bad thing to offer protection from lawsuits or it isn't.

> But doesn't that seem a bit odd?

I totally misinterpreted your point in the first place. If I wasn't full of caffeine, I'd go to sleep.

So to answer your question: Yes, it seems a bit odd.

> If the goal is to ensure that everyone has the same protection from patent lawsuits, I fail to see the distinction between Microsoft and any other parasite.

I'm going to break with tradition. I am officially changing my mind and admitting error. This clause of the GPL no longer makes sense to me. Not because it's a loophole, but because I now see it as being inconsistent. (Does everything have to be about MS, the one true enemy?)

> I am officially changing my mind and admitting error.

I thought I felt a tremor in the space-time continuum. Hey rev...is that sort of thing allowed in the TOS?

Seriously, though, I have long worried that the Novell-Microsoft deal might have brought on a small case of 800 lb. gorilla myopia. It's very natural to want to slap Microsoft in its corporate face. Well earned, too.

Fortunately, the folks from the FSF have a practical streak and I think they've managed to avoid anything horrible. A little inconsistency? Hey, we should all be so lucky to have that for the worst problem we deal with.

And here you were worried that the FSF might take us into reverse technological oppression!

I think the FSF did the best they could. It's difficult to try to use a software license as a tool to resolve the patent mess.

I don't think there's anything in the GPLv3 that would prevent its widespread use.

I think the GPL3 looks pretty good, it's not perfect, but nothing is. It looks to me that they have made a good attempt to clarify the intent of the patent clauses in V2, without causing undue harm in the process.

I think the GPL3 is pretty well done myself, but I do have a question. Why are the definitions for the license split up? Isn't it supposed to have all of them in a section labeled Definitions or similar?

As much as I disagree with their position on the Novell-Microsoft deal, I have little room to complain about GPLv3. Stallman, Moglen, and company might say some things I disagree with, but they are smart enough to not screw up the GPL. I believe the proper term is to say they are "pragmatic". And this is a proper use of the word pragmatic.