Copyleft/guide Changeset - ebe7610b2b3e

Changeset - ebe7610b2b3e

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Free Software Foundation, Inc - 10 years ago 2014-03-19 20:08:50
info@fsf.org

Relevant text from FSF press summary circa 2007-03-28

I (Bradley M. Kuhn) carefully went through some internal FSF files, and found
these in notes that were sent to journalists at the time of the release of
GPLv3 Discussion Draft 3.

I am hereby relicensing this material to CC-By-SA-4.0, with the verbal
permission from John Sullivan, Executive Director of the FSF, which was given
to me during a conference call on Wednesday 12 February 2014. I also
confirmed that relicensing permission on IRC with johnsu01 today.

1 file changed with 78 insertions and 4 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... / @@ -2792,28 +2792,64 @@ require a decryption code in order to read the output. @@
 The third paragraph of section 1 addresses this problem by making clear that
 Complete Corresponding Source Code includes any such encryption,
 authorization, and decryption codes. By requiring the inclusion of this
 information whenever the GPL requires distribution of Complete Corresponding
 Source Code, we thwart efforts to obstruct the goals of the GPL, and we
 ensure that users will remain in control over their own machines. We
 recognize an exception where use of the program normally implies that the
 user already has the codes. For example, in secure systems a computer owner
 might possess any keys needed to run a program, while the distributor of the
 program might not have the keys.
 % FIXME: installation information
 Why do distributors only have to provide Installation Information for User Products?
 % FIXME: installation information??
 % FIXME: perhaps this additional information isn't needed, next 3 paras, but
 %        there might be something good here
 Another major goal for GPLv3 has been to thwart technical measures such as
 signature checks in hardware to prevent modification of GPLed software on a
 device.  Previous drafts attempted to accomplish this by defining
 "Corresponding Source" to include any encryption or authorization keys
 necessary to install new versions of the software.  A number of members of
 the community questioned the impact and utility of such a definition.
 The third discussion draft uses a different strategy to accomplish the same
 task.  Section 6 requires that parties distributing object code provide
 recipients with the source code through certain means.  Now, when those
 distributors pass on the source, they are also required to pass on any
 information or data necessary to install modified software on the
 particular device that included it.  We believe that this will more
 precisely accomplish our goals, and avoid potential problems with expanding
 the definition of source code.  The new strategy should be familiar to free
 software developers: the GNU LGPL has long had similar requirements that
 enable users to link proprietary programs to modified libraries.
 In addition, the scope of these requirements has been narrowed.  This draft
 introduces the concept of a "User Product," which includes devices that are
 sold for personal, family, or household use.  Distributors are only
 required to provide installation information when they convey object code
 in a User Product.  After some discussion with committees, we discovered
 that the proposals in the second discussion draft would interfere with a
 number of existing business models that don't seem to be dangerous.  We
 believe that this compromise will achieve the greatest success in
 preventing tivoization.
 %FIXME: This probably needs work to be brought into clarity with tutorial,
 %next three paragarphs.
 Why do distributors only have to provide Installation Information for User
 Products?
 Some companies effectively outsource their entire IT department to another
 company. Computers and applications are installed in the company's offices,
 but managed remotely by some service provider. In some of these situations,
 the hardware is locked down; only the service provider has the key, and the
 customers consider that to be a desirable security feature.
 We think it's unfortunate that people would be willing to give up their
 freedom like this.  But they should be able to fend for themselves, and the
 market provides plenty of alternatives to these services that would not lock
 them down. As a result, we have introduced this compromise to the draft:
 distributors are only required to provide Installation Information when
@@ ... @@
 that no further restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of
 GPL-covered code.
 \section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
 \label{GPLv3s11}
 The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to
 section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are one of several ways in which
 software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
 from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
 approach to combatting the danger of patents.
 % FIXME: This probably needs editing
 One major goal for GPLv3 is to provide developers with additional protection
 from being sued for patent infringement.  After much feedback and cooperation
 from the committees, we are now proposing a patent license which closely
 resembles those found in other free software licenses.  This will be more
 comfortable for everyone in the free software community to use, without
 creating undue burdens for distributors.
 We have also added new terms to stop distributors from colluding with third
 parties to offer selective patent protection, as Microsoft and Novell have
 recently done.  The GPL is designed to ensure that all users receive the
 same rights; arrangements that circumvent this make a mockery of free
 software, and we must do everything in our power to stop them.
 Our strategy has two parts.  First, any license that protects some
 recipients of GPLed software must be extended to all recipients of the
 software.  Second, we prohibit anyone who made such an agreement from
 distributing software released under GPLv3.  We are still considering
 whether or not this ban should apply when a deal was made before these
 terms were written, and we look forward to community input on this issue.
 % FIXME: just brought in words here, needs rewriting.
 is rooted in the basic principles of the GPL.
 Our license has always stated that distributors may not impose further
 restrictions on users' exercise of GPL rights.  To make the suggested
 distinction between contribution and distribution is to allow a
 distributor to demand patent royalties from a direct or indirect
 recipient, based on claims embodied in the distributed code. This
 undeniably burdens users with an additional legal restriction on their
 rights, in violation of the license.
 %FIXME: possible useful text, but maybe not.
@@ ... @@
 particularly intended to discourage a GPL licensee from securing a patent
 directed to unreleased modifications of GPL'd code and then suing the
 original developers or others for making their own equivalent modifications.
 Several other free software licenses include significantly broader patent
 retaliation provisions. In our view, too little is known about the
 consequences of these forms of patent retaliation. As we explain below,
 section 7 permits distribution of a GPL'd work that includes added parts
 covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain
 kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section
 .
 % FIXME: should we mention Microsoft-Novell at all?
 We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the sixth
 paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent
 protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
 protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
 no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft
 has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any
 software Novell distributes under GPLv3.
 Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from
 distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the
 Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors
 from trying to make other deals like it.
 \section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S~7}
 % FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.
 The wording in the first sentence of section 12 has been revised
 slightly to clarify that an agreement, such as a litigation settlement
 agreement or a patent license agreement, is one of the ways in which
 conditions may be ``imposed'' on a GPL licensee that may contradict the
 conditions of the GPL, but which do not excuse the licensee from
 compliance with those conditions.  This change codifies what has been
 our interpretation of GPLv2.

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)