Modernization is coming to the General Public License, a legal framework that supports a large part of the free and open-source software movements and that has received sharp criticism from Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.
GPL author Richard Stallman said he's working on amendments that could deal better with software patents; clarify how GPL software may be used in some networked environments and on carefully controlled hardware; and lower some barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.
In the 13 years since the current GPL version 2 was released, the license has moved from the fringes to the center of the computing industry. GPL software is now common at Fortune 500 companies and endorsed by most large computing firms. But that prominence has made some eager for an update.
[...]
The patent problem
Patents are one reason Sun chose the license it did. How the GPL deals with that thorny legal area is the issue more than a dozen experts raised most often in discussions for this story.
The patent problems boil down to two issues. First, should the license explicitly require those who distribute GPL software to grant others unhindered use of whatever patented technology is involved in that software? And second, should there be some form of punishment for those who file lawsuits alleging that GPL software infringes their patents?
These issues are under discussion for the next version of the GPL. 'It may possibly help protect our community from pirates armed with patents,' said Stallman, an outspoken critic of the overall idea of software patents.
One interpretation of the current GPL is that patent holders who distribute GPL software 'are in effect granting an implied license' to those patents, said Mark Webbink, the lead intellectual-property attorney for Linux seller Red Hat and a person who first saw revised GPL drafts in 2000. But it might be useful to have an explicitly expressed patent agreement, he said. 'A distributor may not want to leave that ambiguous as to what rights they are giving.'
Frank Bernstein, an attorney with Sughrue Mion, suggests Stallman look for inspiration to Apple Computer's Apple Public Source License and the Common Public License IBM often uses. Both grant a license to use patents covering the software, and when it comes to organizations that sue for patent infringement, both licenses terminate their rights to use and distribute the software.
Bernstein said addressing patents could make the GPL more palatable among corporations--users that have become major contributors to, and customers of, open-source software.
But some would like to see the GPL be more of a political tool tooverturn the idea of software patents. 'We need to find some way to monkey-wrench the awful, broken software-patent oligopoly before it does more serious damage,' said Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative. 'If GPL (version) 3 can help do that, it would be extremely valuable.'
And Bruce Perens, an open-source advocate, would like to see damages for a patent-infringement suit extended to prohibit use not just of the software in question but of all programs classified as free software. 'I would like to see the next issue of the GPL include a mutual-defense clause regarding patents, such that if you enforce a patent against any free software, your rights to use free software terminate,' Perens said.
A middle ground is possible, Linux seller Novell said in a statement. 'Intellectual-property protection and open source can work hand in hand and are not mutually inconsistent,' the company said. [...]"
writes on 