Opinion

Please use the permalink permalink.de/tino/gplv3 to link to this page, never use the direct URL, as this page will move when I reorganize my pages!

2007-03-30 Some few words to Draft 3

The DRM part seems to be better now. But the main problems with the v3 stay. At least for me. Perhaps I am only too stupid to understand this "Legal English" idiom, as I only learned Oxford English on school.

Par. 3: I still not understand

I cannot use any license I do not understand. But I still cannot understand a majority of what is written in the GPL v3 draft. For example, can somebody please translate following paragraphs into English words somebody can understand just reading these words:

No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technical measures.

Both are simply not understandable. Perhaps some lawyers can understand it. I plainly cannot. But I am supposed to use this license. So I must understand.

Again: No, don't explain me what this means. I don't want such explanations from others. I want a license which I can understand, so the explanation must be in the license! So fix the license such that it is understandable. Something like "article 11 of WIPO copyright" must be read like "under stone 9384923 at moon 23898 in universe 928349". You must explain what is written there else the GPL v3 stays unusable (for me).

Par 4 to 6 and 10: Still not thoroughly enough

Think about Sveasoft. It must be made clear, that you must allow customers to forward the work without restriction in binary or source form. A restriction is that you lose access or service if you copy the source or binary somewhere else. This still is not in this paragraphs.

This is, there must be no penalty, in legal form nor any other form, to people who, under the GPL, transfer binary or source code to others.

Also I see following problem:

  • Somebody provides download of a software for a charge. This is you pay money and get a login. This is perfectly valid for GPLled software.
  • With this login you can download binary and a separate source package.
  • Now somebody living in England downloads the binary on his computer. But he does not download the source yet.
  • He donates his computer to a friend in France. So the friend gets the GPLled software without the source. Perhaps the English person does not even remember this piece of software was on his computer (perhaps the copy is just a copy in the browser's cache).
  • When the friend wants to access the download of the source code (even with the login) the company says: The account you use is only valid in England. You can buy a french account for 100000 EUR.
  • It is completely wrong in such a case that the French one can sue the English one instead of the company, as this is the companies fault to not let access somebody else (owner of the binary-only) this download (for example: The source code package can be so big, that the first was not able to download it, ever).
  • Also note that it might be that the company must deny access from France by some legal threats. For example Google must not allow access to gmail from Germany. Yes there are morons out there who do such foolish things like denying world wide services in one country just because they have the right to do so. So there shall be a way to force the company to provide free (uncharged) access to the source code in such a situation.
So these paragraphs must make sure that, if you provide a download under the license, no restrictions to download must be allowed, such that anybody who received the binary-only version must be able to download the source like the first one who downloaded the binary-only (if you as the manufacturer are unhappy with this, you can always issue the source along with the binary and you are free from such mayhem).

This even extends to the Sveasoft case, such that Sveasoft must provide anybody free unhindered access to the source code, as they provide a binary only download. And "providing" must be seen as "allowing others to violate their rights".

The trick of Sveasoft was to let "others" provide the binary releases of their firmware. When you contacted the ISP about this issue (I did!), the ISP contacted Sveasoft, as it was Sveasoft's binary, and Sveasoft plainly did nothing (so the binary download was not taken down). So you were able to download the firmware but you were unable to get the source (and the binary uses Linux).

In such a situation the creator of the binary must either take down these "illegal" downloads, or provide the source. And it must be made clear to the ISPs that downloads of software violating the GPL shall be taken down or the ISP can be officially called "GPL-violator friendly: Treats customer right badly, do not use such ISPs".

Or something like that. Because, as Sveasoft showed, it's just plain easy to circumvent the GPL (they even publicly showed a cite that what they do is conforming to the GPL and that this fact was confirmed by the GNU project or similar!).

If this is part of Par 10, I am sorry, please make Par 10 more clear to explain this verbatim.

Par 11: Again, not understandable

Can somebody please translate this Paragraph into plain English, again? My "english parser" bails out at the 5th sentence with a "semantics too complex" error.

Par 13: Affero General Public License

I would like to see an Option to the GPL which adds Affero like options to the GPLv3. It would be good to have such options (GPL plugins) which are "GPL compatible additional restrictions" which are then part of all future GPLs, too!

It does not help me to use the Affero GPL today, as this is incompatible with GPLv2 (even though GNU says it is not, I cannot read this in GPLv2, so for me it is not compatible as this license puts an additional restriction on the software).

So I would like to see something like "if you use this software for public services, you have to publish the source". And this shall be viral, in that you must provide access to any changes to GPL software you have done in use with this software, such that this software can be compiled as it runs on the service.

I still cannot find this in the GPLv3. Moreover, if somebody creates an Affero GPLv3 variant, this is not covered by GPLv3 - we need a GPLv3.1 then.

Important note

This text now covers the GPLv3 draft 2 but is very short. Many issues with the draft 1 have been resolved now, so most of my rants below are now historic.

Some few words to the Draft 2

Draft 2 made good improvement from my point of view. Some Issues are still there which are really problematic.

The major points I can see in this short time (I only flew over the current draft):

  • HP detected the case, that a company must ban v3 because the anti-patent-paragraph in v3 currently is too dangerous for Companies.
  • I for my part cannot understand all that DRM babble in the text. It must be formulated such, that somebody not suited to American Rights can understand the paragraph and knows, what is meant by all that implications.
So I am waiting for the next draft. And it's very likely that the final GPLv3, whenever it show up, will be something, I can use happily for my projects.

That's all for the draft 2, as I do not have more time to dig deeper into it. There will be a draft 3, I am sure, and I will wait for further actions until it is out.

But here a little conclusion:

There already are things in the GPLv3 draft 2 which are very interesting for me, as it helps me solve problems with the GPLv2. However the GPLv3 draft 2 still is not in a state where I would be able to use it as it is.

-Tino, 2006-08-03

German language posts of me according to draft 2

-Tino, 2006-07-28, updated 2006-08-03

HISTORIC BELOW

The text below covers Draft 1, it is retained for historic reasons

Why the GPLv3 (draft 1) is void

In some German Posts I describe, why I cannot use GPLv3:

Here I do it again in English, because I think, it's important. Note that this text is a draft. It is not thought to be more than a draft. So expect false claims. This then is due to my limitation in understanding the V3 correctly.

Why the v3 is not better than the v2

Note that I have not read nor understand everything of the v3 yet. This is mainly because IANAL and not this good in English. But as I understand it, I do not need the v3.

  • I am not handicapped without v3: I can write code under v2 and allow "later versions" too, so nobody is hindered to use the code and go up to v3.

  • I cannot understand the DRM thingie: Does this means, that you are not allowed to create GPLled software, which runs a DRM? Does this mean, you cannot create a GPLled software which is protected against use by DRM? Why not?
    1. The GPL is about free and fair use of a source of a software, right?
    2. GPL is about a free and fair use of the binary, right?
    3. So if DRM is bad, why am I not able to run a piece of software on my Hitzujkazu-Yamahorgay-CPU designed 2 seconds ago working with a 12.5 Bit-Bus which is incompatible to any hardware which was ever designed before and will ever be designed afterwards?
    4. Hardware is a kind of DRM! This is the nature of Binaries, that the Binaries do not run on something else. If my router breaks, the Kernel particular designed for this hardware only does not run on any other hardware on this planet.
    5. This is exactly what DRM does. If the "license" (aka Hardware) wears out, the binary ceases to run.
    6. But the source doesn't do so! So GPL must protect the sources, not the binaries. So if the DRM paragraph covers the binary this is a conceptual misunderstanding of the nature of our universe!
    7. Hardware is compiled Source. Hardware is DRM. So DRM must be allowed on Binaries. If you disallow DRM on Binaries, you disallow to run GPLled code on non GPLled hardware. Period
    8. So I think the DRM paragraph can only protect GPLled sourcecode, not the binaries.

  • I cannot understand the behavior modification program in the v3: This is the Patent issues thingie, where you can sue somebody, who uses GPLled software, in case a patent infringes with the GPLled software.
    1. Patents are a short term measure. I understand that 20 years or so is a major obstacle. But patents are clearly of temporary nature. Come on, let's behave mature, and leave those patent-kiddies where they are. If you want to change the patent problem, do it on the political level, not in the GPL.
    2. GPL is about rights the receiver of a software has, right? GPL is not about to restrict, what the user can do with the binary itself. If a pacifist writes a piece of software and this is then used by an army to erases all life from this planet, this solar system, this galaxy and this universe altogether, so what? It's not the goal of the GPL to hinder this. It's the goal to give the inheriting beings, those meta creatures looking at our pocket-universe, to give the freedom to use any piece of software they find in the remains of our universe. It's not thought to hinder them to do with their universe, likewise. So why tell people who have the GPL how they have to behave when it comes to patents? If they patent an algorithm which is in the GPLled code already, the patent is void. If they patent something and distribute it as GPL, what harm is done? It's still a good thing, as the patent never lives forever, but you are allowed to use the software forever!
    3. Having this in the GPL gives CEO a chance to say "Well, there is this anti-patent-issue in the GPL, so we cannot afford to support this". I already live in times where CEOs say "please no freeware!" (literally!), because there is no other company which can be sued if something breaks. This is identical with "there is no function guarantee". It's hard enough to convince people, that they gain freedom, as it's Open Source. However now there is a good argument against GPL, which cannot be discussed either.

  • Therefor I call this two paragraphs jealousy-paragraphs. Please don't get me wrong, but this is the impression I got from these. They are nothing I need in the GPL. Well, I can live with them, but I am not required to have them. These are mainly contra productive, as there might show up some issues with software from me which I do not want. I don't know as IANAL, so I need time to understand it. But I doubt I ever will understand it. I don't want to need to understand all this implications as this is wasted effort (I am not jealous about DRM nor patents), so please leave such things out of the GPL! It's too complicated for me to think about it. Therefor I will certainly stick to V2 but leave "later versions" allowed if the V2 stays how it is proposed. It's more convenient for me to see it this way. And this leaves my V2-Software compatible to V3 and V2-only, which is most important, I think. And I think some people will start to distribute V2-only, because of the nature of the V3.

  • So the V3 is too complicated for me to understand. I cannot see things, which help me, but what I can see are obstacles, which hinder me to understand the GPLv3. Therefor it is not better than the V2.

Important matters are missing

This does not mean, I am all happy with the GPLv2. This is simply not true. The GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses we have. However it completely fails if it comes to the future. This is the grid. I need a license which is more restrictive than the GPLv2 to be able to write software today, which restricts future use of the software which - in my eyes - contradicts the spirit of the GPL, but is not covered by the GPL, neither V2 nor V3.

In the grid software distribution will be void. There simply is no more software distribution as we have it today. You will distribute the software a way, which leaves out the user from the rights of the GPL. This way will be the major case in times where the Grid is in place.

These issues are:

  • The GPL does not give the right to users to get the source of an application: It only gives the right to do so if the application is distributed to the user. However in the Grid, the user is distributed to the application so the GPL does not work in this case!
    1. The GPL shall have an option to force ASPs to release the modifications to their GPLled applications to their users: If you are an ASP and use some GPLled software as a service to users (paid or unpaid), it shall be compatible with the GPL to force them to release the source code modifications to the community.
    2. Such a restriction still shall be compatible 100% with the GPL, such that you must publish all GPL software used in this case.
    3. Also it shall make a complete application (without the data). Such that if the ASP goes out of business, somebody else can take over the community, because the source must be open!
    4. Only parts which are attached through interfaces (like LGPL or via URL) and which are not intrinsically needed to run the software (like a database server or database contents) are allowed to be missing. If the database needs some scripts to run the code, these scripts then must be Open Source (released under GPL), too!

  • Think of the Sveasoft case: Sveasoft voids the GPL. This is done indirectly. You do not have the freedom to use and distribute a software, if you are hindered by some other contract. This contract of Sveasoft is, that they don't want you to distribute development snapshots of their firmware. If you do so, you are disallowed to access the development area again. You only gain access, if you pay money. If you lost the access you have to pay again (if they ever accept you again). Well, you may argue, this is not affecting the GPL. But it is. If you are allowed to do free speech but you are killed afterwards because of this, your right to free speech effectively is void, as you will not use it, because you are punished if you stick to your rights. Same is true for Sveasoft's case. No, I don't think it's bad what Sveasoft does! It's only, that it's not covered by the GPLv2 nor the GPLv3. However it's an interesting model to work on GPLled software, and I think it's worthwhile to allow it:
    1. The GPL shall allow delayed source distribution: This is, you are allowed to not provide the source for a certain period. I think of 9 to 12 months.
    2. This delay must only be provided a way, that even if a meteor hits the company and kills all people who knew about the source, the source still must stay available. This is, there shall be other service companies offering the service to provide the delayed source code.
    3. The source code must be provided openly to anybody in this case, not only to paying customers. The idea is, that it might prove impossible to provide the proper authorization. Having something like a "request permit code" or such is a major obstacle to gain the rights again to get the source. If I am interested in the source, and I cannot use my right today but delayed, something might prevent me (I.E. a killer hired by the company killing all people who express interest in the source) to use it when the time comes. So the distribution must be open later on. I am sure, SourceForge etc. will be happy to provide such a service.
    4. Note that this urges companies to steadily improve GPLled code and do "release often", as else after the timeout period they loose their winning margin to the other companies! Also note that they must do things which are wanted by the users, as else they will not sell their new version, the users will stay at the older version (as the source became public, then).
    5. Also note that this helps companies to make money out of GPLled code. No, I am not jealous if some company would gain Zillions of Dollar and not paying me a single cent. I program GPL not to become rich, I do it, because I think it's the right way to do (it's the same with free speech: I practice this because I think it's the right thing to do, not to make money out of it). If others are better in making money out of my work, they are welcome. They are welcome even if they don't give back to me, as long as they stick to the rules and obey the GPL. (This text here is Creative Commons. So if you make Zillions out of it not giving back to me, feel free to do so, you are welcome, as long as you attribute my name, that's the rule. And as soon as I enter the Anonymous Space, aka. I2P, even this attribution will no more be needed. I do all this, because I think it's right this way.)

  • Please see the power of the combination of those two effects! While the first one is a new restriction which can be applied to all GPL software, the second one is a relaxation to counteract the new restriction. Both together allow companies still to stay an edge ahead of their competitors.
All this is missing in the GPLv3. So there is no benefit for me to use it.

Final words

I am a programmer. I am not here to educate. I am not here to sue. I am not here to do political things. I even don't want to argue.

I am just interested in improving our methods to master the cyberspace. And I am interested in that we do this freely and openly. That's why I am interested in the GPL.

However the GPLv3 is not helping me to fulfill my goals. It's more a step backwards than an improvement.

So I will stay at V2.

-Tino, 2006-01-26, spellchecked 2007-03-30
PS: Please note that I am a nobody. So who cares that I stay at V2. I do! As I hoped to be able to solve some of my problems with the V3, but the V3 creates a new problem called "understanding the V3 correctly and it's new implications".