[PD-dev] License implications of GPL3

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

I think that the license is complicated indeed, but only because it  
has to be.  The landscape has changed a lot since GPLv2, so in order  
to preserve software freedoms, the license needs to be that  
unfortunately.

Something they are addressing in v3 that is of direct interest to Pd  
users is patents.  v3 will basically have a lot of built-in things to  
prevent and discourage people from suing users for patent  
infringement.  That means that things like mp3, mpeg2, mpeg4, and  
many other codecs could be more freely used.  Right now, there are  
many free software implementations of those codecs, we are only  
hampered by the patents.

I know I plan on releasing all my software under v3.

.hc

On Nov 27, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Chris McCormick wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 03:53:15PM +0000, padawan12 wrote:
>>
>> Wow, there's a huge can-o-worms. I'm not going to touch the tin  
>> opener
>> other than to say it seems bad, but I don't really understand.
>
> I don't know that it is neccesarily bad. Previously if someone did  
> that
> (added extra clauses about use to an otherwise GPL2'ed piece of  
> software)
> it just didn't make sense in any way. It was in legal limbo. But now
> they're explicitly saying that if someone has legal-limboed a piece of
> software you can rescue it by cutting the limbo cruft out of the
> license. They have also provided us with a mechanism for adding  
> additional
> freedoms to licenses, as long as you don't take any away. So I  
> think for
> instance you're allowed to say "this is licensed GPL v3 and you can  
> also
> use it when you are naked."
>
>> I think that you have to either share and shut up or not share at  
>> all. In
>> other words it's improper to be adding arbitary personal whims to  
>> work you
>> publish and expect the world to sing along. On the other hand I'm so
>> emphatically opposed to crap like digital restrictions management  
>> that the
>> CC licenses for my music are decorated with extra clauses making  
>> the license
>> void if used on a DRM infected media or channel. Call me a  
>> hypocrite, you'd
>> be right, I really don't know how to defend my dualistic position.
>
> Yeah, totally. I feel your pain. It's complicated stuff. DRM is one of
> the big concerns in the new GPL license and I hope that it becomes  
> a big
> concern for other types of Free license writers too.
>
> The other alternative is to live somewhere where nobody gives a  
> fsck about
> the law anyway and just breaks it. In the current climate of corporate
> copyright law it might be best to do this so someone could continue to
> be free to make the software/whatever that they want without threat of
> lawsuits. Luckily we don't live in the United States of Earth just  
> yet.
>
> It's a tradeoff though because if you do that then somebody in that
> same place can just take your code and close it up and make a  
> commercial
> product or whatever, and you have no legal recourse to fight it  
> because
> the legal IP framework doesn't exist.
>
> Hopefully the places in the world which are more open with IP law will
> apply market pressure on the developed world to stay properly free, by
> naturally being more conducive to innovation and thus leapfrogging us,
> leaving us bogged down in the mud of legislation and law suits.  
> Nothing
> will make the big corporations want to wash off that mud like a well
> aimed kick right in the profits.
>
> Best,
>
> Chris.
>
> -------------------
> chris at mccormick.cx
> http://mccormick.cx
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev


------------------------------------------------------------------------

The arc of history bends towards justice.     - Dr. Martin Luther  
King, Jr.