Geeklawyer confesses to not having fully read the interim GPL3 draft yet.
That won’t dissuade him from giving an opinion of course since informed truth is as hemlock to commentary.
Goods points seen so far:
- a software patent retaliation clause.
- an attempt to mitigate entangling GPL code in evil DRM schemes.
Bad points:
- Still not clarified the issue of remote & dynamic linking.
- Web services (Google etc.) not addressed (though that may be a good thing for adoption - dunno).
Please feel free to correct Geeklawyer on any of these issues as he skim read the draft and may thus be talking utter bollocks.
[Update:19/jan/2006] Geeklawyer notes Eben Moglen’s remarks on the justification for the DRM modification. This is, in a sense, an extension of the conception of software hackers right in GPL2 to those of the end users of GPL3 code as well. That is good and philosophically consistent: if you wish to use Free code to screw your users, you can’t
Geeklawyer accepts that this is an esoteric debate for those not interested in geek IT Free software issues and apologises. The normal random vulgar posting will continue shortly. And in response to Danny O’Brian’s comment in this post on the webservice’s ‘Google’ issue (i.e. do such users who only use the code internally to provide public facing services have to disclose modifications), Eben Moglen said “It is clear that in this draft we have not changed those rules at all,” he said.”. Geeklawyer is a bit neutral, indeed pragmatic, on this point: if it lead to the increased use of Free software then good but if it damages uptake overall then it’s bad. It is a very hard one to call except with clear and, so far absent, evidence.
I believe you mean Carlsberg! Or am I now demonstrating an area of specialist knowledge best kept secret! I think you will find that Heineken refreshes the parts that other beers cannot reach….
Ahem, Geeklawyer is a piss artist & knew it was Carlsberg not Heineken, honest!
Web services aren’t addressed as an additional required clause to the GPL, but the permitted additions to the GPL now include that “they may require that the work contain functioning facilities that allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
Source Code.”
Think of it as a plug-in module.
Oooh, NTK!!
Thanks for the extra info - I’ll reread the draft at some point.