« Section 230 Immunity Expanded | Main | Google's Copyright Woes Continue with $1.5 Billion Suit by Viacom »

New Link in the GPL Sausage

sausage2.JPGThis week, the Free Software Foundation issued its latest draft of the GNU-3 open source license.    The prior draft, released in January of 2006 was widely criticized, including major objections by Linux founder Linus Torvalds over digital rights management ("DRM").  The second version attempted to soften the license's effect on DRM but continued to require developers to provide encryption or authorization keys to those wanting use modified versions of the code. The new version appears to have soothed some of these concerns, and has also softened contentious language addressing patented software that relates to open source distributions.  The new version does not make it any easier to use the GPL in connection with other open source licenses.   

The ultimate resolution of the GPL drafting issues is important in an environment where an increasing number of businesses are taking advantage of open source software.  Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman has taken an idealistic approach to these licenses and the many industry gurus commenting on the drafts, including open source pioneer Linus Trovalds,  appear to be looking for practical solutions to providing licenses that give licensees some insurance that the software will perform as expected.   Hopefully, this process will result in a workable final draft.  If not, expect a shift to the numerous other open source licenses available.    With high profile litigation already in the spotlight, look for more fun when this version comes out.   In typical Stallman fashion, the new GPL is chalk full of policy statements that could aid in court interpretation or cause more confusion.

Image Courtesy of David Blaine under Creative Commons Copyright License, modified to include binary code depiction.

Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 10:13AM by Registered CommenterSteve Cosentino in | Comments1 Comment

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

Makes one wonder if courts will find that the two versions are legally distinct or if they will instead find such a license's enforcement subject to its evolving nature over time. Certainly such an idea wouldn't likely be contemplated in evaluating changing boilerplate contracts at a company -- unless to show that an omission in one contract within the time of a long course of dealing was an oversight or some such -- but creative commons licenses are new tech, and courts sometimes get creative when dealing with new tech. It'll be interesting to see how this develops.
April 3, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSean FWJ Fowler, Esq.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.