Comments on: Public debate on GPL 3 draft begins

Free Software Foundation releases the first public discussion draft of the General Public License version 3.

[samkass]

Yikes...

This sounds like an all-out assault on DRM and software patents. I hope the GPL crowd doesn't license themselves into oblivion.

[David Arbogast]

Explain...?

--A retaliation clause that prohibits an organization from using privately modified GPL software if it files a patent infringement lawsuit relating to that software.--

Excuse me? Can somebody explain this? If I am using GPL software... and I modify it within the terms of the GPL I should be fine.

But if somebody has stolen some of my patented code and incorporated it into GPL software, then I must choose between giving up usage of the GPL software and enforcing my patent rights?

Am I understanding this correctly? You can only defend yourself against stolen patents if you agree not to use the GPL software that violates your rights? Hmmmmmmm....

[Jaqui_Greenlees]

I think you did misinterpret that.

What I beleive was meant, if you create an application, based on GNU-GPL code, patent it, then start filing patent infringement suits against everyone using that same gpl code then you have forfeited the priviledge of using that code.

The base premise of the GNU-GPL is to protect open source software, keeping it open source. The side benefit is that this protection extends to those using it.

[R Me]

not really

something you have to get straight, a methiod of doing something is pantented. Software code written to accomplish the method is copyrighted.

It has nothing to do with pilfered/copied code, which is copyright infringement and everything to do with parallel development of the same method.

So basically if the method you own is not free then you may not use free code either.

[jiri_baum]

A deal like any other

"But if somebody has stolen some of my patented code and incorporated it into GPL software, then I must choose between giving up usage of the GPL software and enforcing my patent rights?"

It's a deal like any other - I'll license you my copyright code if you license me your patents. If you want to call the deal off, then you have to call off both halves.

[Blito]

I like it so far

Yes allot more clear and I like the part about original authors intent or 'reputation' protected so there remains a privacy explanation so as not to think this is a totally 'public' license. It just protects the public's rights once the item is recieved but the creation remains private. Also I like the explanation of 'Object Code' which is code that is not intended for distibution and completley private to the author.

Also the DRMers have 'stolen' this software and used it for their own purposes to lock in consumers. if people want to use Open Source code they have to play buy the rules.
I like the geographical explanations
Privacy Invasion maybe needs more expounding like explanation of 'Rootkits' and 'Personal Informaiton Gathering.'