[Fsf-friends] Comments on the GPLv3 Process

[Ramanraj K]

It  is reported at  http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that
Linus Torvalds has sharply  criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior"
to GPLv2.

Several elements in  the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make  it plain that
the shift  is from "freedom" to  "slavery", "hate" and  "fear". If the
GPLv3  ever  comes into  effect  with such  terms,  it  may even  make
non-free licenses look very respectable.

I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am
maintaining, so  that modifications  to the Calpp  code base  would be
only under GPLv2  until further notice, to ensure  a comfortable level
of freedom for its developers and users.

The most important  reason why most people appreciate  the GPL are the
four freedoms:

0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose
1: freedom to  study how the program works with  source code and adapt
   it to your use
2: freedom to redistribute copies and
3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.  

The GPLv2  has implemented the  freedoms as license  conditions giving
rights to  licensees to enjoy the  freedoms listed above,  and has not
only stood the test of time,  but has created a good ecosystem of free
software  where  developers, users,  businesses  and governments  have
benefited.

GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and
licensees to make the  freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable.
Many  clauses in  the draft  GPLv3 are  unintelligible  and ambigious,
giving  open invitations for  interpretations.  Having  provisions for
"additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even
worse, they  would only help to  curtail rights and  make the freedoms
illusory.

If  the  GPLv3  mission is  alter  the  well  known  freedoms 0  to  3
substantially,  then it  is fairly  important to  discuss that  in the
first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.

It  is premature to  discuss the  GPLv3 draft,  without arriving  at a
broad  consensus on  what fixes  are  required to  the basic  freedoms
enjoyed by developers  and licensees. I would request  RMS and the FSF
to  first make  a restatement  of freedoms  0 to  3  before proceeding
further with the GPLv3 process.

In India,  most of the criticism  about the GPL has  been about making
the  freedoms  more  practically  available  by making  the  GPL  more
enforceable.

Many have asked if the GPL violates the "Rule against Perpetuity"

Most GPLed  software is  freely available for  download by  the public
from the Internet,  and therefore, the terms in  the GPLv2 that ensure
perpetuity for public benefit,  advancement of knowledge, commerce and
other benefits to  mankind make it valid and  enforceable.  This issue
in fact  holds the key to the  future progress of the  GPL.  Focus and
attention  on the public  nature of  code contributions  and examining
ways and means to strengthen the distribution of computer programs and
modifications on the Internet  with better licensing conditions should
help.  If the GPLv3 draft process ignores real issues, and side-tracks
into the private domain, it may just end up there, as a self-defeating
meaningless exercise for all of us.

Regards,
Ramanraj K