GPLv3: Do we really need it?

GPLv3: Do we really need it?


I assume that people who read freesoftwaremagazine.com will most likely be aware of the fact that the Free Software Foundation is working on an update to the GPL version 3. If you're not, a number of articles and blog posts have been written on the subject. But with the Linux kernel developers stating that they oppose many of the changes, and with some people licensing software explicitly as "GPLv2" rather than "GPLv2, or any later version", one could wonder whether the whole update effort makes any sense.

Differences

Let's have a look at the most important changes between version 2 and version 3 of the license:

  1. Definitions and wording have been changed so as to not rely as much on US copyright law as version 2 did.
  2. Additional clauses have been added that try to counter DRM.
  3. Anti-patent clauses have been extended.
  4. An entirely new section has been added to enumerate a number of restrictions which any developer can add to the license, in an effort to make it more compatible with other free software licenses.

Opinions, opinions

Much of the disagreement with the direction the GPLv3 is going stems from the anti-DRM clauses. Many people feel that DRM is orthogonal to free software; that writing software which implements DRM functionality is not inherently wrong. The Free Software Foundation disagrees; in their opinion, anything which restricts a users' rights to use the software as they wish should be abolished. This includes DRM.

One could say that this indicates one of the major differences between the open source and free software movements: where open source is a methodology to improve software quality, free software is about freedom. Creating software that implements DRM technology should be possible using any methodology; however, creating software that restricts a users' freedom to do what they wish with the software is perpendicular to the intent of ensuring their freedom by writing free software.

These differences in opinion have been rehashed for quite some time in many places on the Internet, and the anti-DRM clause alone has been reason enough for some people to claim that the GPLv3 is unneeded. But that statement ignores the other differences between the GPLv2 and GPLv3.

The point of the non-DRM changes

Internationalizing the license is not critical to the continued legal value of the GPL. However, clarifying a license so that its intent is clear using terminology of any jurisdiction can only be a good thing. While this change alone is not why the GPLv3 is needed, it certainly is an argument in its favor.

Being compatible with more free software licenses is a laudable goal that the GPLv3 tries to accomplish. License proliferation has been a constant source of problems to the free software movement as a whole; the ability to combine GPL'd software with more free software than is the case with the GPLv2 will allow the free software movement to do more with the available software out there. This can only improve and stimulate innovation, which is wonderful.

Finally, extending an anti-patent clause so that it is clearer and catches more cases of patents which stifle free software innovation may just help in reducing the effect that patents have on free software. It probably won't help us get the world rid of software patents; but since free software and software patents are incompatible by definition, explicitly stating that is a good thing.

Conclusion

The GPLv3 tries to accomplish many things, some of which may be incompatible with the goals of the open source (as opposed to free software) movement. But even if you feel that these parts are unnecessary and should not be added to the license, I feel you should agree that the other parts are a good thing, and should be welcomed. For one thing, it would remove the OpenSSL/GnuTLS problems...

Category: 
Tagging: 

Comments

Crosbie Fitch's picture

It is not DRM that's the real problem, but an iniquitous law known as the DMCA (or EUCD).

DRM is as secure as a chocolate teapot and serves only as an amusement.

DMCA is the thing that throws you in prison if you dare try to make a cup of tea.

If you own the hardware, you also own the resident decrypt keys. That's what the DMCA unethically disagrees with.

DMCA suspends your rights. DRM is simply an irritation created by morons.
If DRM actually worked, the DMCA wouldn't be required to oblige people to pretend it did

Wouter Verhelst's picture

But, stupid or not, the anti-DRM clause is apparently bothering a lot of people.

Crosbie Fitch's picture

It's probably dividing the open source crowd from the free software crowd.

On the one hand we have those unprincipled souls who are quite happy to suspend people's rights to enjoy access to their own software and hardware - they just find GPLv2 a useful license for collective/collaborative software development purposes - to keep the collectively developed source code visible (to developers).

On the other hand there are those who believe the public's rights should be restored (nullification of copyright, DMCA, and patents). That means that new and cruel means of suspending these rights via DMCA and patent racketeering need to be addressed by corresponding amendments vis GPLv3.

If you only care about source code visibility, and not one whit about the public's rights, then exploiting DMCA protected DRM sounds like a great money earner - and who of that mindset would wish to sacrifice profit for principle?

Understanding that assured source code visibility is not commercial suicide is the first paradigm shift.

Understanding that copyright and patents are inherently unethical is the second paradigm shift.

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

GPL 3 does not abolish DRM ... it only requires that the encryption keys are made available, so that users can deactivate it if they wish to do so.

I also find the following comment disturbing:

>> some of which may be incompatible with the goals of the open source

Really ?
Which are those ?

This is the same discussion as with GPL v.2 versus BSD ... it really depends on what you understand by "freedom" and "open".

And who cares that the kernel will remain version 2 ?
GNU/Linux is an operating system where multiple open-source licenses happily coexist.
I actually think it is a good idea for the kernel to remain GPL ver.2, although I will support GPL ver.3

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

One can only assume your all scared of DRM, because it does not allow you to copy something thats NOT YOURS,, just because its in digital form, you all think its "free Game" for theft.

if not,, what is your issue wit DRM,, you say "its easy to break" but why break it,

Example: someone wants to realease a song on the internet, with DRM, he at least has a way of recouping some money for his effort, Thus prompting him to release the song in the first place.

You destroy DRM, and he wont produce that song, IT WONT be available to YOUR IN THE FIRST PLACE,
Goes from Digital Rights Management, to Digital Removal management.

So you can either have it legally, and fairly with DRM, or not have it AT ALL, unless you want to go to you local music shop and BUY the CD.

Same crazy argument with patents, you WANT to use other peoples inventions, but you DONT want to use it FAIRLY, you feel its OK to STEAL it, if you like it, and freely use it,

BUT in the real world patents are there for a reason, and just because you dont like them, does not mean you can (or should) try to license around the law.

Just makes FOSS look like petty criminals.

until you want up, and join the "REAL WORLD", and stop having the mindset, that if something is in "digital form" its FAIR GAME for theft.

IF you cancel or "work around" patent and copyright laws, (to get your own way), then youa re basicially being criminal, but justifying your crimes with a license.

does not, and never will change the basic facts, that if you follow this path, you'll simply limit your options, no one will want to try to make money or release songs or programs on the Net as they know there FOSS boys will RIP THEM OFF..

no one will want anything to do with FOSS, if you think that you have the right to steal other peoples idea's and inventions, "JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TOO".

you have not made ANY progress in patent reform, for good reason,
and do you even realize that DRM is in DIRECT RESPONCE to FOSS, its because of FOSS and the GPL, that DRM even exists.

You cant be trusted, and no one trusts you, so they create DRM, to enforce trust and honesty from the FOSS community.

Introduce GPLv3 and ensure the continued very poor market performance of FOSS.

Its has a reputation of, as theifs, and criminals, who will take what they like, when they like, of whoever they want. and try to justify it will stupid and lame licenses.

You should try to keep above the law, and you should be BETTER than this.

guydjohnston's picture

Whether or not you think that copying information without the copyright owner's permission is immoral, please don't use words such as "theft" to refer to it. The two are fundamentally different. When you take something away from someone, such as a physical object, that's theft, because you've deprived them of it. When you make a copy of some information, such as software or music, that isn't theft, because all the other copies still exist, so you haven't deprived anyone of anything. There's some good information on this at http://www.questioncopyright.org/faq.

I also disagree with your view that somehow everyone in the free software and open source movements are criminals. Richard Stallman started the free software movement because he thought everyone should be allowed to copy and modify their software. He decided that it wasn't a good idea to just do that with existing proprietary software as it was illegal, so he decided to write a new operating system from scratch, GNU, which people could have those freedoms with legally. Just because people in our movement use some software because it allows us to copy and modify it, that doesn't mean that we do that illegally with other software.

Also, the reason we're against Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is to stop people who distribute copies of free (as in freedom) software from using DRM to deny other people the same freedoms they have with it. It's not about making it easier to break the DRM on other information to infringe copyright.

--
GNU - free as in freedom

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

as well as laws enforcing DRM because it deprives me of my fair use rights. I should have the right to pay for content once and shift the format of the content for any fair use purpose. I should have the right to make backups of the content that I paid for. I should have the right to reference the song as part of fair use.

Digital Restriction Management is bad enough because it deprives me of the right to fair use. Laws that protect DRM are even worse because it makes it illegal for me to practise my fair use right. DRM is defective by design because the difference between fair use and copyright infringement is based on intent. Software will NEVER be able to detect human intent and therefore it will never be able to detect what is fair use and what is not.

Now for stealing, there is no theft involved. Nobody is deprived of a product. The content does not disappear when somebody infringes the copyright. The copyright owner of the content doesn't suddenly lose the content when somebody infringes the copyright.

This is the same thing with patents. When someone infringes a patent, nobody is being deprived of the patent. The patent does not suddenly disappear when somebody infringes on a patent. I argue that software patents are not enforceable. Computer software is a subset of mathematics. Mathematical equations cannot be patented so therefore, computer software that involves a mathematical equation (which is all of them) should not be patentable.

Wow, what a flame piece. As I analyse the rest of your comment I can find so many baseless assertions, so much faulty logic that it is not funny. I don't want to argue the rest of your arguments in this post because it would make this post much bigger than it already is.

In conclusion, I want to you think about the user for a second rather than "Intellectual Property Owners". When you create software, you do it for the user, don't insult them by treating your customers like criminals by installing DRM with the software. This is insulting because with DRM, a legitimate customer becomes a criminal with no chance to prove innocence. When you create music for customers to listen to, don't insult the them by treating them like criminals by installing software that limits the customers rights. This is insulting because with DRM, a legitimate customer becomes a criminal with no chance to prove innocence.

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

as well as laws enforcing DRM because it deprives me of my fair use rights. I should have the right to pay for content once and shift the format of the content for any fair use purpose. I should have the right to make backups of the content that I paid for. I should have the right to reference the song as part of fair use.

Digital Restriction Management is bad enough because it deprives me of the right to fair use. Laws that protect DRM are even worse because it makes it illegal for me to practise my fair use right. DRM is defective by design because the difference between fair use and copyright infringement is based on intent. Software will NEVER be able to detect human intent and therefore it will never be able to detect what is fair use and what is not.

Now for stealing, there is no theft involved. Nobody is deprived of a product. The content does not disappear when somebody infringes the copyright. The copyright owner of the content doesn't suddenly lose the content when somebody infringes the copyright.

This is the same thing with patents. When someone infringes a patent, nobody is being deprived of the patent. The patent does not suddenly disappear when somebody infringes on a patent. I argue that software patents are not enforceable. Computer software is a subset of mathematics. Mathematical equations cannot be patented so therefore, computer software that involves a mathematical equation (which is all of them) should not be patentable.

Wow, what a flame piece. As I analyse the rest of your comment I can find so many baseless assertions, so much faulty logic that it is not funny. I don't want to argue the rest of your arguments in this post because it would make this post much bigger than it already is.

In conclusion, I want to you think about the user for a second rather than "Intellectual Property Owners". When you create software, you do it for the user, don't insult them by treating your customers like criminals by installing DRM with the software. This is insulting because with DRM, a legitimate customer becomes a criminal with no chance to prove innocence. When you create music for customers to listen to, don't insult the them by treating them like criminals by installing software that limits the customers rights. This is insulting because with DRM, a legitimate customer becomes a criminal with no chance to prove innocence.

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

You obviously have no clue or understanding on the position of a lot of people in the FOSS community. I can't speak for the community at large, but I can speak for myself.

1. On DRM:
I'm perfectly willing to pay for digital content and use it within the limits of the law. However the fact that there is currently DRM applied makes it currently more difficult to follow the law than to "steal". I'm using Linux, so no iTunes or other DRM protected shops that I can use. On the other hand there is a lot of illegal MP3's easy to get. Even if I could use a DRM music shop on Linux, I would not be able to play the music I paid for on my portable MP3 player (I already had one before DRM enabled devices existed and don't see why I should invest in a new device, I have the right to use my existing investment). Nor would I be able to convert the music I bought to another format in case that would make sense someday. The result is that today (not wanting to "steal"), my digital music collection exists from songs I ripped myself from my own audio CD's + some I bought or acquired legally for free from DRM-free online shops. However the music industry does make sure not much the DRM-free shops don't offer much interesting music. As a result I can't find much interesting legal DRM-free music online, and I buy much less music then I would want to. The real criminals that want to make money out illegal content distribution can get by DRM easy enough. So today DRM reduces the functionality for the goodwilling law abiding user, while the criminals with wrong intentions are simply not bothered by it. That is why I am against DRM. NOT because I want to derive the author from what is rightfully his. But because I only want to pay for something that meets my needs. DRM does not do any good to the end users, nor the music industry (making it too difficult on users just drives them to other solutions that might be illegal).

2. On Patents:
While I do agree with the value of patents in certain sectors (e.g. pharmaceuticals), I do not in the ICT sector. A patent is intended to make it worthwhile to invest in research and development. In the physical world this is expensive, and so to make sure that people do invest in innovation, a patent gives them the opportunity to have a monopoly from the innovation to cover for the investment. However in software development, the cost in research and development is very low, often even not existing (only a cost for production, i.e. the software development process itself). There it makes no sense at all to give a monopoly, as there is no incentive needed to drive innovation (the FOSS community is living proof of this point of view). Moreover even if there would be, compared to the physical world, the evolution is so much more rapid, that it does certainly not make sense to give the same time period for the monopoly. Even 5 years would be ridiculous in ICT. Most ICT technologies are superseeded after a couple of years (they might still be in use in legacy systems, but better technologies being deployed in the mean time, so not having any sales value anymore).
The worst is that due to the low costs in R&D for software, the cost of applying for a patent is much higher then the cost of the innovation itself. This leads to the perverse situation that only the rich companies can apply for patents, even on very simple stuff. By holding these patents and using them against the less rich (often small companies or individuals), they stiffle innovation instead of driving it. This makes software patents counter productive to the goal of patents.
Today patents on software are abused by big companies. There are even companies that don't innovate at all but just buy patents to suck money out of other companies. Money that these companies need to get from their customers, and thus eventually from the consumers. So all consumers need to pay so that some players abusing the patent system just get richer for doing nothing productive. That is why I am against software patents. Not for "stealing" other peoples innovation, but to make sure that anyone can be innovative without fear of someone holding some obscure patent against them on something really evident and simple.

Before you start calling names (thieves) to people with another opinion then yours, please first try asking why they have that opinion. Only when you are sure that your name calling is correct, go ahead. Now you really just made yourself really ridiculous for reacting so strong on something you clearly don't even understand.

Kind Regards,

Sitor

sitor's picture
Submitted by sitor on

You obviously have no clue or understanding on the position of a lot of people in the FOSS community. I can't speak for the community at large, but I can speak for myself.

1. On DRM:
I'm perfectly willing to pay for digital content and use it within the limits of the law. However the fact that there is currently DRM applied makes it currently more difficult to follow the law than to "steal". I'm using Linux, so no iTunes or other DRM protected shops that I can use. On the other hand there is a lot of illegal MP3's easy to get. Even if I could use a DRM music shop on Linux, I would not be able to play the music I paid for on my portable MP3 player (I already had one before DRM enabled devices existed and don't see why I should invest in a new device, I have the right to use my existing investment). Nor would I be able to convert the music I bought to another format in case that would make sense someday. The result is that today (not wanting to "steal"), my digital music collection exists from songs I ripped myself from my own audio CD's + some I bought or acquired legally for free from DRM-free online shops. However the music industry does make sure not much the DRM-free shops don't offer much interesting music. As a result I can't find much interesting legal DRM-free music online, and I buy much less music then I would want to. The real criminals that want to make money out illegal content distribution can get by DRM easy enough. So today DRM reduces the functionality for the goodwilling law abiding user, while the criminals with wrong intentions are simply not bothered by it. That is why I am against DRM. NOT because I want to derive the author from what is rightfully his. But because I only want to pay for something that meets my needs. DRM does not do any good to the end users, nor the music industry (making it too difficult on users just drives them to other solutions that might be illegal).

2. On Patents:
While I do agree with the value of patents in certain sectors (e.g. pharmaceuticals), I do not in the ICT sector. A patent is intended to make it worthwhile to invest in research and development. In the physical world this is expensive, and so to make sure that people do invest in innovation, a patent gives them the opportunity to have a monopoly from the innovation to cover for the investment. However in software development, the cost in research and development is very low, often even not existing (only a cost for production, i.e. the software development process itself). There is makes no sense at all to give a monopoly, as there is no incentive needed to drive innovation (the FOSS community is living proof of this point of view). Moreover even if there would be, compared to the physical world, the evolution is so more rapid that it does certainly not make sense to give the same time to the monopoly. Even 5 years is ridiculous in ICT. Most ICT technologies are superseded after a couple of years (they might still be in use in legacy systems, but better technologies being deployed in the mean time).
The worst is that due to the low costs in R&D for software, the cost of applying for a patent is much higher then the cost of the innovation itself. This leads to the perverse situation that only the rich companies can apply for patents, even on very simple stuff. By holding these patents and using them against the less rich (often small companies or individuals), they stifle innovation instead of driving it. This makes software patents counter productive to the goal of patents.
Today patents on software are abused by big companies, there are even companies that don't innovate at all but just buy patents to suck money out of other companies. Money that these companies need to get from their customers, and thus eventually from the consumers. So all consumers need to pay so that some players abusing the patent system just get richer for doing nothing productive. That is why I am against software patents. Not for "stealing" other peoples innovation, but to make sure that anyone can be innovative without fear of someone holding some obscure patent on something really evident and simple.

Before you start calling names (thieves) to people with another opinion then yours, please first try asking why they have that opinion. Only when you are sure that your name calling is correct, go ahead. Now you really just made yourself really ridiculous for reacting so strong on something you clearly don't even understand.

Kind Regards,

Sitor

Wouter Verhelst's picture

I do not think it should be legal to copy copyrighted works without the permission of the author. Never. Ever. I do think an author should allow his work to be copied in most cases; but if he chooses not to do so, then that is his right and prerogative, and this should be respected.

With that out of the way,

No, DRM does not work. It does not, and it will not ever, work, unless you manage to somehow change the laws of physics. What DRM tries to accomplish -- to forbid you from making a copy of a given file -- is physically impossible: the mere act of playing a file already implies making a copy. You cannot play a digital file without copying it first. Of course, DRM does make it harder to copy a file; but those who want to do illegal stuff hardly ever care about whether something is "hard" to do or not. In short, all DRM will ever accomplish is to annoy the hell out of people who are actually legitimate, paying, customers.

Great way to do business.

Second, and this is really a pet peeve of mine, making illegal copies of copyrighted work does not equal theft. Saying it's the same thing is like saying murder equals theft, because "you took a person's life". It's not. It's illegal, it's unethical, it's punishable by jail time in most countries, but so are many things; that does not make it theft.

guydjohnston's picture

I have to disagree with you there. I don't think copying information without the copyright holder's permission is "unethical" in any way. When you steal something, that's unethical because you've deprived them of it. When you murder someone, this is even more unethical because you've taken their life, which also harms their friends and family. However, when you copy information, such as software or music, this isn't unethical because you haven't taken anything away from them or harmed them. They still have all the copies of it they had before, and all the money they had before.

It's important to remember that copyright isn't a natural right people have. It's an artifical power (note the difference between a right and a power) given to people to benefit the public. We trade our freedom to make copies of it for the opportunity of often having more made available to us, because it's easier for publishers and authors/artists to make money from them. However, as it's very easy to copy information nowadays, the loss of the freedom to make copies has become quite a large burden on us, and I'd say it's often not worth the possibility of allowing more works to be published, as it's also relatively cheap to distribute works now.

This artificiality of copyright can be seen from the fact that it only lasts a certain amount of time (though the copyright industry keep managing to persuade governments to extend it over and over again). You say that "I do not think it should be legal to copy copyrighted works without the permission of the author. Never. Ever." Does that mean you think it's wrong to copy a work when it's in copyright, but the instant it falls into the public domain, that's different and suddenly it's OK? Or do you think it's still unethical when it's in the public domain? If so, do you think I should have to ask the permission from Shakespeare's descendants to perform one of his plays?

One thing I will say is unethical is revealing private and confidential information about someone, which can harm them in other ways. This is different from copying information which is made available to the public.

--
GNU - free as in freedom

Wouter Verhelst's picture

Yes, I really feel it is unethical to not respect the wishes of the author with regards to their copyrighted work. Copyright is a right to every author. It may not be a natural right, but then neither is it a natural right for you to read any random thing someone else wrote, or to listen to any random music someone else made; even if they made that with the intention of making it public; not even if they are a famous composer or a famous author.

This right, however, should not be endless, and I agree with you that it's insane that governments keep extending it. It should at some point be released into the public domain, and at that point there is nothing wrong with copying it.

guydjohnston's picture

I don't understand how you can say something is unethical to start with, but then after a predetermined length of time, it automatically becomes ethical. Surely if something is unethical, that doesn't change just because a certain length of time has past. The length of time copyright lasts for has also changed many times, and it varies between different countries. How can copying a particular piece of information in one country be unethical while at the same time being OK in another country? It's important to remember that the law should follow ethics as closely as possible, not the other way around.

I agree that people don't have a natural right to access to a copy of every piece of information ever made, because they can't force someone else to make a copy for them if they don't want to. However, I do believe that once someone has a copy of some information, it's their natural right to make as many copies of it as they want, unless it's beneficial for the public to temporarily suspend that right (by allowing more useful information to be published). Whether or not you can copy some information affects you more directly than the person who created it (or the copyright holder, who is often someone different), because you can directly enjoy the benefit of having more copies of it, but making that copy will only affect that other person if it prevents you from buying a copy which you would have definitely bought otherwise. Often, you wouldn't have bought a copy otherwise. That's why being allowed to copy information is a freedom, but being allowed to stop other people from copying it is a power.

--
GNU - free as in freedom

Wouter Verhelst's picture

It's important to remember that the law should follow ethics as closely as possible, not the other way around.
I guess that is where we disagree the most. In my opinion, a law on copyright is ethical. Having the right to claim copyright allows one not only to make some money out of their work if they so choose (which is necessary if you want to run a business, and does not require non-free software); it also allows you to clearly associate yourself with your work, being able to point to something and say "this is what I did", since you're name's all over it.

While I agree that not all laws are good—the DMCA and EUCD come to mind—I generally feel that breaking the law is unethical. Moreover, I do agree with you that the length of copyright and the extensions thereof are madness—but they do not apply to computer software copyright, since no computer software has been around long enough to have its copyright expire.

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

Stallman for president of the US.

We'll you got Bush now, so clealy honestly, or brains are a requirement for President.

Stallman, needs to be in PRISON, not president, then again, so should BUSH.
both morons.. without a CLUE..

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

[QUOTE]One can only assume your all scared of DRM, because it does not allow you to copy something thats NOT YOURS,, just because its in digital form, you all think its "free Game" for theft.[/QUOTE]

Not mine? Ha! How is the computer hardware I BOUGHT and PAID FOR not mine? How is the AUDIO-CD I BOUGHT and PAID FOR not mine? How is the TiVO device I BOUGHT and PAID FOR not mine?

If I PAY FOR the right to SEE digital content (be it via a DVD I BOUGHT and PAID FOR, a monthly subscription to Sky or the Audio-CD that I BOUGHT and PAID FOR), I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECORD IT FOR PERSONAL USE. PERIOD.

If YOU DON'T WANT ME TO RECORD DIGITAL CONTENT THAT I HAVE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR DON'T CHARGE ME MONEY FOR IT.

No vendor has any right to charge money and deny ownership to a sold product - digital or any other.

Anonymous visitor's picture
Submitted by Anonymous visitor (not verified) on

[QUOTE]Stallman, needs to be in PRISON, not president, then again, so should BUSH.
both morons.. without a CLUE..[/QUOTE]

I thought prison was made for ignorant malicious freaks like you who think that stealing people (by denying them ownership to products they have PAID FOR) is fair game.

Why should someone like RMS - who campaigns for protecting software USER RIGHTS - be in prison? However he does it, at least he is doing something for humanity - unlike you, who think that supporting people who rob unknowing users is cool.

Raghu Kodali's picture

GPL v2 was written long back & I think we need GPL v3 in the present day situations. GPL always looks out for the freedom of the users. I feel that this is very well taken care of by v3.

I do understand that open source advocates might be against the license as their goal is not user's freedom but the way they write the code.

As a user, I vote for GPL V3 & would take whatever small code contribution I do to V3 when it is released.

guydjohnston's picture

I agree. I think that GPLv3 will do quite a lot to help protect the free software movement from threats such as DRM and software idea patents.

--
GNU - free as in freedom

Author information

Wouter Verhelst's picture

Biography

Wouter is an independent contractor specializing on Free Software. In his free time, he contributes to the Debian Project as a Debian Developer.