Free Software Foundation releases version 3 of the GPL

Although June 29, 2007 will probably be most remembered for the release of some cellphone, another release that will hugely affect the tech community went out on that fateful Friday -- version three of the GNU General Public License was officially released, revising the terms that govern the use and distribution of many open-source projects, including Linux. A major goal of the revisions was to prevent the use of free code in closed devices (known charmingly as "tivoization"), drawing criticism from Linus Torvalds, Tivo (naturally), and others, but the Free Software Foundation maintains that the changes will be beneficial to end users. We're all for device makers opening up their boxes, but we're not sure forcing them to do so via license restrictions is the way to do it -- we'll see how this plays out in the future.

[Henry @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:11AM]

In the FSF eyes, all users have some innate need to get the source code and recompile things. As if your 16 year old daughter wants to do that with her iPhone.

I guess when you lock yourself in a dark room, everyone looks like you.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:36AM]

No, the FSF feels you should have a right to that code, not a need.

[Juan @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:24AM]

The FSF is using the same bullying tactics as a lot of the companies that fight to keep their devices closed.

[Andir3.0 @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:37AM]

Fight fire with fire?

[beoba @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:46AM]

If a company has a problem with opening their source, they shouldn't use code that the authors decided to license under the GPL. As a developer, I want any GPL-ed code I write to be able to flourish, rather than be locked away.

Who is bullying who?

[Todd @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:34AM]

Now the 90 lbs, weakling has return to the beach to where the bullies kicked sand in his face!

Tivo, Microsoft, and everyone else that has taken open source code, used it to lower development costs, re-sold it as their own, and never give anything back - it's your move now.

[Bondo @ Jul 3rd 2007 11:09AM]

The controversial changes in GPLv3 have nothing to do with source code. TiVo has always allowed a user to get all modifications to the linux kernel source (and all other open source programs utilized) that they have done. GPLv3 dictates that you cannot use GPLv3 source code on hardware that does not allow a user to run modified code. The reason why TiVo is targeted is because they do checksum verification on all software prior to running, which naturally, doesn't allow an end user to change the software.

And in a move shocking no one, Linus has said that the linux source code will never move to GPLv3, so TiVo will still be able to use it, they will simply have to avoid incorporating any new FSF source.

[Eric @ Jul 3rd 2007 11:04AM]

This just in. GPL shoots self in foot, BSD license gets big boost.

If Linus Torvalds is agin' it, the FSF are fools to ignore his complaints. They just guaranteed that Linux won't go GPL3.

[Neebs @ Jul 3rd 2007 11:39AM]

How is this related to the i*is shot*

[koz1000 @ Jul 3rd 2007 11:55AM]

Well, Todd, you'll get your wish.

Longer development times, higher development costs, and less interaction with users. That means higher product costs in the end.

Companies don't win, but they're sure as hell not going to lose. They'll just pass the bill to you.

[Todd @ Jul 3rd 2007 12:09PM]

"...but they're sure as hell not going to lose."

Yeah, they'll lose - in court. Also, I am yet to receive a bill from Ubuntu, FireFox, Yahoo Mail, Google, OpenOffice.org, Eclipse and MySQL - Hmmmmmmm. Weird.

[koz @ Jul 3rd 2007 12:33PM]

I think you misunderstood my reply.

GPL3 means that those companies that were using open-source code (like TiVo) will just drop that open source code and go back to proprietary software. They will develop it with their own money and their own programmers. No more lawsuits, no more hassles from FSF. Everyone is happy.

Everyone is happy until you, Todd, go to the store and notice that the Tivo Series 4 with Dynamic Turnip Twaddling costs $200 more per unit. Someone has to pay for those extra programmers and extra time.

And that person will be you.

And when you want to find a linux driver for that new NVidia Model XYZ2000 700fps video card, where will you find it? Ooops, NVidia took that source back. You'll have to pay for it now, if it ever gets published at all.

Maybe GPL3 is a good thing if you're a software engineer, come to think of it. Lots of job security.

[Todd @ Jul 3rd 2007 1:02PM]

Oh. Well, no thank you, sir. I built a MythTV out of an old PC I was given for free. Don't want or need a TiVo box.

http://www.mythtv.org

[Henry @ Jul 3rd 2007 1:39PM]

I'm laughing at you Todd.

Actually I don't mind GPL v.3. People should have a right to decide how their code is used. If Todd and his hippie-breatheren like to share code amongst themselves, more power to them. If you look at the UI and arcane compile requirements, you almost need a joint just to understand it.

Go Todd Go. Build that MythTV. Recompile Emacs to your hearts content. But leave your evangelizing somewhere else. If someone chooses to stick w/GPL v.2 or use the BSD license, why do you care? Programmers should choose what they want, regarless of what RMS and the FSF want. And if you really want to be OPEN source, GPL can't touch BSD.

[Carlton @ Jul 3rd 2007 4:10PM]

@koz: Since when has NVIDIA release the source code to their drivers? They don't. They *do* release free (not as in freedom) binaries, but they do not release source code. They likely can't because they use other proprietary code, licensed from other companies, as well as their own.

I can't believe you're actually trying to justify that consumer's get a product faster and cheaper if open source code is abused. Yeah, why don't they just steal some proprietary code while there at it? The producers of open source code should be able to limit its abuse; they wrote it, it's their work. If they don't care, it's very easy -- just don't release it under GPL.

As for someone mentioning that linux won't be GPLv3'd, well, the kernel won't, but a ton of software, especially the main tools, all GNU work made by the FSF will, so it will have a direct effect on TiVo and such.

[James @ Jul 4th 2007 8:53AM]

Todd, you're lucky your Myth box runs on Linux (and will thus never be GPL3). If it were GPL3'd, you might never be able to get a video driver for it (see above), and it would never again benefit from e.g. patches submitted by the Tivo team (Google around for that a bit, you'll find the hits). Lots of "open source" software has corporate sponsors or contributors, even government sponsors. I can't count the times I visited a project author's homepage and read in his bio that he works on XYZ in his spare time at Novell or some such...

This is *not* a healthy decision for FOSS.

[Chris @ Jul 3rd 2007 1:43PM]

the Linux kernel does not have the standard, and optional, "version 2 or any later version of the GPL" note in its licensing so v3 does not affect Linux at all. Also, the products that do have the note are welcome to stick with version 2, as well as any forks or derivative works. Until people start saying "version 3 or later" in the license, this is non-issue all around. What this is going to cause a bunch of application to drop that note and only specifically mention version 3.

What I'm worried about is the FSF making v3 a requirement for being a GNU project, which will hurt some commercial distributions. All linux distro's include GNU programs, and there aren't many easy to swap in alternatives.

[koz @ Jul 3rd 2007 2:47PM]

I'll enjoy watching Todd try to build his own cellphone when all the manufacturers have finished the transition to Linux.

[Todd @ Jul 3rd 2007 4:56PM]

Sir, I have already built one, works great!

http://www.openmoko.org/

[Carbonize @ Jul 3rd 2007 3:57PM]

Reading this story makes you wonder if Engadget's 'reporters' even read their own site? When the last revision of GPL was announced Engadget reported on the fact that Linus would not be using it for Linux but instead would stay with the previous one. So "revising the terms that govern the use and distribution of many open-source projects, including Linux" is incorrect as the terms governing the use of Linux code have not been changed nor are they affected by this change.

[Branko Collin @ Jul 3rd 2007 7:53PM]

"We're all for device makers opening up their boxes, but we're not sure forcing them to do so via license restrictions is the way to do it"

You'll be glad to learn then that nobody is forced to do anything. Don't like the terms? Then don't use the code.

[James @ Jul 4th 2007 8:56AM]

OK, they could have worded it as "forced to choose between developing new code to replace the now-GPL3'd code or opening their hardware" but that reads quite poorly. I think everybody got the gist -- people like e.g. Tivo will be unable to use any new patches to the open-source components they currently employ if the new license restricts that, and will be forced to choose between opening their platform and dropping the open source code. Don't pretend like the new license means nothing.

[Branko Collin @ Jul 4th 2007 10:20AM]

There's a third option, namely that they create their own patches to the original code.

Whichever way, it does not matter. Suppliers are under no obligation to keep supplying. Interesting that when it comes to free software, there's always this extra standard that its producers must adhere to.

"Don't pretend like the new license means nothing."

Don't pretend I do.