For anyone who didn't notice, GPLv3 dd3 is out: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-guide
I've put up a side-by-side diff of dd2 and dd3: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/diff-draft2-draft3.en.html
Brett Smith of FSF has already posted a clarification about the bracketed phrase at the end of the 2nd last paragraph of section 11 (Patents): http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-28-gplv3-grandfather
His point is that the "from March 28th onward" exemption would not put Novell in the clear - it's for other companies with seemingly harmless existing patent deals.
For anyone that can make it to Brussels for April 1st, Richard Stallman will be there to talk on GPLv3: http://fsfe.org/en/events/gplv3_improving_a_great_licence
...and for any other information, just ask, or take a look at FSFE's page: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
Il giorno 28/mar/07, alle ore 23:42, Ciaran O'Riordan ha scritto:
For anyone who didn't notice, GPLv3 dd3 is out: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd3-guide
hi Ciaran, i have read it quickly... i got a problem...
today i was discussing with an other professionist i'm working with, we do not want make big money, but just find a way to live working on freesoftware based solutions
we are not redhat, we are not ubuntu, we are not in the united states where you can ask big money for embedded linux solutions or custom enterprise installations
we where thinking of... ok... let's develop that... no, a competitor can copy it, it has more commercial power than you and you lost months of work...
ok, let's do services... no, you cannot ask so much money for each day of work ... so making services is not "scalable"
so?
freesoftware makes sense only if i make the hardware and i give the software for free?
how can i maintain myself? how can i make a company on freesoftware without violating GPL
i do not want to force you to change GPL, but think that there are people out here that are not university students or professors that get payed anyway at the end of the month...
if i develop a livecd, should i give away my toolchain? packages source code is not enough?
gpl3 is going to enforce this problem?
-- Guido Serra aka Zeph http://guidoserra.it +39 348 4313 992
sistemista e sviluppatore
From: Guido Serra Mailing-List: discussion@fsfeurope.org Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 12:13:32AM +0200
[]
so?
Your questions are pointless. You didn't invent this, you didn't contribute, you are just another one "how can it be that wrong way?", i.e. every free thing must fit your needs, yet it doesn't.
freesoftware makes sense only if i make the hardware and i give the software for free?
Free Software is As Is.
how can i maintain myself? how can i make a company on freesoftware without violating GPL
And why you are not asking Sun or Laws of the Nature to maintain yourself? They are free (no cost), and many information available for free about them. Yet there's no enough power from the Sun for people like you, there can be no Perpetuum Mobile. Will you barking about that, and whom you will do?
i do not want to force you to change GPL, but think that there are people out here that are not university students or professors that get payed anyway at the end of the month...
If you think, that to be university staff is bad, go to Iraq, there is oil for free, while managers of it are those, who are killing innocents. And you are *paying* those morons to fuel your car. Care to ask them why?
I will not going to clarify what classic academia is. If today's
,-> ms-windows-ms-word-paper-#-of-articles -. `-------- i_wana_a_grant() ? OK : NO; ------'
"staff" isn't what you want them to be, ask your politician fellow, you've voted last time to deal with that. And ask s/he to do it quickly without much bureaucracy and tax money!
if i develop a livecd, should i give away my toolchain? packages source code is not enough?
I will not care, because i can do my and share.
Questions are quality of your work, usability, usefulness. If you have nothing really good from that points of view, go to army, as i suggested earlier, don't waste your live.
gpl3 is going to enforce this problem?
What i owe you, i've forget, sorry?
Real problems with that licence *update* have those, who actually do the job, e.g. The Linux Kernel Community (i hope you all know what they did and what they actually _do_).
Cheers.
p.s. i'm sorry, if i tried to feed the troll. -- -o--=O`C info emacs : not found #oo'L O info make : not found <___=E M man gcc : not found
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Il giorno 29/mar/07, alle ore 06:59, Oleg Verych ha scritto:
From: Guido Serra Mailing-List: discussion@fsfeurope.org Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 12:13:32AM +0200
[]
so?
so you can be constructive or not, you are not constructive
want to talk? start not calling me "troll", i better should not respond to you email and start making closedsource software to reach the end of the month
ok, i was right... http://www.upol.cz/ ...you are an academic you are the "troll", you can sing on the tree and say "oh, freesoftware is wonderful"
Your questions are pointless. You didn't invent this, you didn't contribute, you are just another one "how can it be that wrong way?",
where is your contribution? show me the code! (citating someone else)
here is my code:
* http://www.gosa-project.org/ * http://trac.seagullproject.org/ticket/1409
and here is my life
* http://guidoserra.it/cv-resume/
i lost many years in Milan/ITALY, fighting against sw patents, doing linuxdays, and creating a community... at my expense, for what? for reading "contributions" like yours?
i have an ideal, but i do not eat an ideal
i.e. every free thing must fit your needs, yet it doesn't.
freesoftware makes sense only if i make the hardware and i give the software for free?
Free Software is As Is.
what a fantastic way of doing a constructive discussion, i'm the BOFH, you are not
how can i maintain myself? how can i make a company on freesoftware without violating GPL
And why you are not asking Sun or Laws of the Nature to maintain yourself? They are free (no cost), and many information available for free about them. Yet there's no enough power from the Sun for people like you, there can be no Perpetuum Mobile. Will you barking about that, and whom you will do?
so why did you ask to people paying taxes to pay your montly income? is like Sun...
i do not want to force you to change GPL, but think that there are people out here that are not university students or professors that get payed anyway at the end of the month...
If you think, that to be university staff is bad, go to Iraq, there is oil for free, while managers of it are those, who are killing innocents.
i'm working with Emergency in my spare time, taking time when i should work or study
And you are *paying* those morons to fuel your car. Care to ask them why?
where are you? behind a shelf? so please, SHUT THE FUCK UP
I will not going to clarify what classic academia is. If today's
,-> ms-windows-ms-word-paper-#-of-articles -. `-------- i_wana_a_grant() ? OK : NO; ------'"staff" isn't what you want them to be, ask your politician fellow, you've voted last time to deal with that. And ask s/he to do it quickly without much bureaucracy and tax money!
i also trying to be elected in milan, with the same people that tryied to fight against IPRED last year... do not make me the lesson... you are not in the position
if i develop a livecd, should i give away my toolchain? packages source code is not enough?
I will not care, because i can do my and share.
because your state maintains you, idiot
Questions are quality of your work, usability, usefulness. If you have nothing really good from that points of view, go to army, as i suggested earlier, don't waste your live.
yeah, right, i'll code closedsoftware because of stupid people like you
gpl3 is going to enforce this problem?
What i owe you, i've forget, sorry?
asshole
Real problems with that licence *update* have those, who actually do the job, e.g. The Linux Kernel Community (i hope you all know what they did and what they actually _do_).
i'm the linux kernel community, i'm learning, well, i'll try to learn windows CE by now
thanks, to open my eyes
Cheers.
p.s. i'm sorry, if i tried to feed the troll.
you are
- -- Guido Serra aka Zeph http://guidoserra.it +39 348 4313 992
sistemista e sviluppatore
From: Guido Serra Mailing-List: discussion@fsfeurope.org Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:32:02AM +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Il giorno 29/mar/07, alle ore 06:59, Oleg Verych ha scritto:
From: Guido Serra Mailing-List: discussion@fsfeurope.org Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2007, 12:13:32AM +0200
[]
so?
so you can be constructive or not, you are not constructive
Yes, maybe i am. Also i realize, that
Everybody have a right to have his personal, wrong opinion.
want to talk? start not calling me "troll", i better should not respond to you email
This is your response to my guess, placed in "p.s." with apology "sorry". But your angry, non constructive, offensive answer led exactly to what i was afraid of.
and start making closedsource software to reach the end of the month
ok, i was right... http://www.upol.cz/ ...you are an academic you are the "troll", you can sing on the tree and say "oh, freesoftware is wonderful"
Please, next time you are welcome to reach me in the Gmail service, my account name is 'olecom@gmail.com'.
Now, please, think of what you've wrote, WRT why i'm so open for discussion: i have 'Organization' header in every message, you can see IPv4 address of the machine i'm sitting at now in e-mail header (feel free to put your angry there :)
Before i will reply to 'you are the "troll"', let me quote your next, disclosed to ML message:
,-*- [Message-Id: 66C5CEE5-AE40-4CB2-9554-857064F8AB38@gmail.com] -*- |and bodyrental market (continuous income) cannot go over 250euros/day | |italian taxation is about 48,5% for me, i'm a freelancer ... that |means 125 A DAY!!! |(when you are lucky...) `-*-
So, if it will make you feel better, i have 250 euro/month. This is enough for me for hardly read books, make my scientific research and study, improving my English, writing patches to software i like, helping people with my knowledge (bug reports, most in debian-kernel, slightly in LKML) among other not-so many things.
Your questions are pointless. You didn't invent this, you didn't contribute, you are just another one "how can it be that wrong way?",
where is your contribution? show me the code! (citating someone else)
Usual answer for questions like that is -- goggle.
here is my code:
Here we can go far beyond topic, but that will be my last paragraph.
Quote from the first page from the site:
The product GOsa was chosen by the city of Munich (14.000 IT worksations) to manage their new installations. The city of Munich is currently moving all her infrastructure from a proprietary
By not looking into GPL'd PHP (*sigh*) sources of this wonderful project, just to note, that your English on that official site is bad, IMHO. Why? Simply because 'city of Munich' is not a female person, thus you can not use 'her' personal possessive pronoun, you should use 'its'. Also, make sure you've ran trivial spell checker there (hint: workstations).
Have a nice day.
p.s. non informative parts of quoted message were left unanswered and removed. ____
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The product GOsa was chosen by the city of Munich (14.000 IT worksations) to manage their new installations. The city of Munich is currently moving all her infrastructure from a proprietary
By not looking into GPL'd PHP (*sigh*) sources of this wonderful project, just to note, that your English on that official site is bad, IMHO. Why? Simply because 'city of Munich' is not a female person, thus you can not use 'her' personal possessive pronoun, you should use 'its'. Also, make sure you've ran trivial spell checker there (hint: workstations).
ugh! ... i should contact Cajus and tell him to correct it :(
anyway, i do not want to "troll" here, i'll continue privately with ya
sorry to the mailing-list readers... hope discussion in list will continue on the problem not on our personal feelings at the moment...
i have received some constructive mails in private and that's enough to keep me "hopeful"
i'll wait for something public before GPLv3 is released as-is...
- -- Guido Serra aka Zeph http://guidoserra.it +39 348 4313 992
sistemista e sviluppatore
On Thursday 29 March 2007 09:32, Guido Serra wrote:
p.s. i'm sorry, if i tried to feed the troll.
you are
Oleg, Guido,
please both try a more constructive discussion style, otherwise you and we all will suffer from it.
There have been some real questions vom Guido and there have been some answer in Oleg's response. Both should not lead to personal attacks.
Bernhard
Guido Serra guido.serra@gmail.com wrote: [...]
where are you? behind a shelf? so please, SHUT THE FUCK UP
I don't like this style of discussion. Please, shut your own up.
Many people are making money from free software with a wide range of business models. Other lists like LSP or oekonux can maybe tell you more about how, but try not opening by whinging at them.
ObWhinge: is the gplv3 consultation going to get web accessibility before its over? I'll take it up with a webmaster yet again, see what's happening.
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
ObWhinge: is the gplv3 consultation going to get web accessibility before its over?
If I was going to do technical work on the portal, I'd've done it during the quiet period at the start of this year rather than now when things are about to get hectic. So my guess is that no, technical changes will not be made.
Also, I think the author of the stet system is busy on something else and is less available now.
But maybe the email method will be made to work (if it currently doesn't).
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
ObWhinge: is the gplv3 consultation going to get web accessibility before its over? I'll take it up with a webmaster yet again, see what's happening.
There aren't going to be any major changes in the commenting system itself. However, I believe that any browser can access the various list views of comments (if there are problems getting to those links and/or the search form used to construct them, then we could do something to make them more easily visible) and submit contributions via email, which will then be integrated along with the rest of the comments. Also, there are going to be a number of IRC meetings scheduled in which comments can be made directly.
The GNU webmasters aren't involved with the system, so please send any suggestions or error reports to webmaster@gplv3.fsf.org.
John Sullivan johns@fsf.org wrote:
The GNU webmasters aren't involved with the system, so please send any suggestions or error reports to webmaster@gplv3.fsf.org.
Ah, so maybe that's why it isn't as good as the GNU sites. I've sent a first error (rereport) to the above address.
Thanks,
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
John Sullivan johns@fsf.org wrote:
The GNU webmasters aren't involved with the system, so please send any suggestions or error reports to webmaster@gplv3.fsf.org.
Ah, so maybe that's why it isn't as good as the GNU sites. I've sent a first error (rereport) to the above address.
Yes, the GNU webmasters are doing a great job. Thanks for the bug report.
Guido,
On Thursday 29 March 2007 00:13, Guido Serra wrote:
today i was discussing with an other professionist i'm working with, we do not want make big money, but just find a way to live working on freesoftware based solutions
we are not redhat, we are not ubuntu, we are not in the united states where you can ask big money for embedded linux solutions or custom enterprise installations
observations show that there are companies outside of the USA that manage to earn money from Free Software. So how do they do it? This is not so easy to answer, there have been a couple of studies and speeches trying to address this.
Also it is estimated that 40% of all stable Free Software product are already developed by payed professionals.
we where thinking of... ok... let's develop that... no, a competitor can copy it, it has more commercial power than you and you lost months of work...
This is a general problem with all small business startups, not just software.
ok, let's do services... no, you cannot ask so much money for each day of work ... so making services is not "scalable"
They scale a bit if you have superiour knowledge, experience, practice and a track record. Also services are less vulnerable to general economy effects as you are generating value close to the customer. This is not bad as a business in general.
freesoftware makes sense only if i make the hardware and i give the software for free?
No, my company Intevation charges for it.
how can i maintain myself? how can i make a company on freesoftware without violating GPL
There is no silver bullet to fund a business, you have to be do something solid in several aspects. Just being a good software person is not enough. Again it is good to know that there are numerous individuals and companies being able to maintain themselfs.
i do not want to force you to change GPL, but think that there are people out here that are not university students or professors that get payed anyway at the end of the month...
Looking at some estimations, it seems that this is not relevant, as GNU GPL is the most used Free Software license and there are many other people maintaining themself with Free Software. (For those that can read German, my article as the references: http://intevation.de/~bernhard/publications/200408-hmd/200408-wandel_der_it_...
Mainly [Lakhani et al. 2002] Karim Lakhani, Bob Wolf, Jeff Bates and Chris DiBona Hacker Survey v0.73, 24.6.2002, Boston Consulting Group http://www.osdn.com/bcg
and [Reiter 2001b] Bernhard Reiter License Distribution (Post to discussion (at) fsfeurope.org 21.6.2001) http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2001-June/001167.html
if i develop a livecd, should i give away my toolchain? packages source code is not enough?
A toolchain can be part of the source code. With a live-CD you will like have used many components done by others, so why not have them profit from your work based on their work?
gpl3 is going to enforce this problem?
I do not think it will, but the circumstances are not clear enough to me to definately answer this.
Bernhard
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org writes:
...and for any other information, just ask, or take a look at FSFE's page: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
I have two questions.
1. The bracketed clause in section 11:
At http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-28-gplv3-grandfather you can read:
"So, if the text in brackets is adopted for the final version of the license, it is true that this would grandfather in Novell. [..] After all, that deal would still be affected by the previous paragraph, forcing Microsoft to offer its patent protection to everyone instead of just Novell's customers."
How can both sentences be true? The first sentence says that the bracketed clause in section 11 would make the Novell-MS deal valid and the second sentence says that it would have still effects on the Novell-MS deal.
Can someone explain this to me and maybe point me to the corresponding text in the 3th draft of GPLv3?
2. Conveying Non-Source Forms
The new text in section 6 preventing "Tivosation" says:
"Network access may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network."
Does this mean that i would be able to modify the software on my video device but as a reaction the device could disable my access to the network which distributes the movies?
Draft 2 had this language:
"[..]that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)"
It seems something like this is missing in draft 3 to make sure that the devices will do the same tasks with modified software like it did before. Or have i missed something?
Best regards, Bjoern
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 21:12 +0200, Bjoern Schiessle wrote:
"So, if the text in brackets is adopted for the final version of the license, it is true that this would grandfather in Novell. [..] After all, that deal would still be affected by the previous paragraph, forcing Microsoft to offer its patent protection to everyone instead of just Novell's customers."
How can both sentences be true?
The first sentence is saying that MS-Novell-like deals would be prohibited in the future; people entering into such deals would be unable to "convey" software covered by the GPLv3.
The second is trying to say that previous paragraph allows you to convey, even if you enter such an agreement, so long as the patent protection is offered to everyone. I actually think the second sentence is mistaken - the previous paragraph says "If [..] you convey [..] a covered work, and grant a patent license [..] to any of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work". That doesn't apply in the MS-Novell situation. I may be misunderstanding the intent of the blog author, though.
So, both sentences can be true, because they're saying subtly different things. (This text is paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 11 of the new draft, btw).
"Network access may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network."
Does this mean that i would be able to modify the software on my video device but as a reaction the device could disable my access to the network which distributes the movies?
No; it means that you could modify the software, and as a reaction the network operator could revoke your access to the network system you need to access.
It does open a "loophole", because access to the necessary network system isn't totally guaranteed, but frankly I don't see how you can 100% guarantee it. People have to be able to control who can access their network.
Cheers,
Alex.
Bjoern Schiessle schiessle@fsfe.org writes:
How can both sentences be true?
I'm talking with Brett Smith about this and should be able to explain it soon.
Can someone explain this to me and maybe point me to the corresponding text in the 3th draft of GPLv3?
The corresponding sections are paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 11.
"Network access may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network."
Does this mean that i would be able to modify the software on my video device but as a reaction the device could disable my access to the network which distributes the movies?
Your access can only be blocked *if* you modify in a way that harms their network. The purpose of this is to allow Tivo to block people who turn their devices into tools for crashing Tivo's network or harming it in other ways. It shouldn't allow Tivo to block people simply remove the spyware or add a "copy to my PC" button.
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org writes:
Your access can only be blocked *if* you modify in a way that harms their network.
Mobile phones are a better example than Tivo for this.
GPLv3 says that it is ok if phone manufacturers want to make the device cut off network access when modified versions of the software try to broadcast or listen to forbidden wavelengths.
For more on the general topic of phones and free software, see: http://lwn.net/Articles/226446/
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org writes:
Your access can only be blocked *if* you modify in a way that harms their network.
Mobile phones are a better example than Tivo for this.
GPLv3 says that it is ok if phone manufacturers want to make the device cut off network access when modified versions of the software try to broadcast or listen to forbidden wavelengths.
thanks for explanations.
I think the crucial sentence in draft3 of GPLv3 is (section 6):
"The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made."
I have now read it multiple times and i think it will probably achieve the same like this sentence (from section 1draft 2):
"...such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs..."
But i think the language in draft 2 was straighter and more obvious.
Cheers, Bjoern