I am a paid-up member of the Free Software Foundation. I’m proud of the work they’ve done, and glad to have them as a major participant in the world of software. I use GNU Emacs, Make, the GNU userland, GNU Ghostscript, and GNU compliers every day in my work. I license most of my software under the GNU GPLv2. I’ve always been hesitant to use the "version two or any later version" language recommended by the FSF. Now they’ve demonstrated why.
The final version of the GPLv3 says this:
- Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
That is, if I release a program under the GPLv3, anybody else can do their own work under the GNU Affero GPL and combine the two. What’s the GNU Affero GPL? It’s just like the GPL, but it says you have to make the source available over a network. This is designed to allow authors to claim that they’re distributing Free Software while prohibiting its use by Application Service Providers:
- Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must give all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
It’s based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of what a network is. A network is not just a large computer. The USPS is a network. This says that if the USPS is using routing or OCR software licensed to them under the Affero GPL, they’ve got to offer that software to anyone who uses it—especially if the customer has a computer printing out the labels. There’s no clear dividing line between "interaction remotely through a computer network" and provision of a service with assistance from a computer. When I reach a computerized phone tree, perhaps using GNU Bayonne on their end, are they now obliged to offer me the source to their phone tree? To their copyrighted speech files? To the uncopyrightable database behind them?
The right to run the software for any purpose is the most crucial component of Free Software. In his zeal to punish large corporate freeloading users of Free Software, RMS and the FSF have compromised that freedom. If I can’t run a business using Free Software, what’s the point?
The whole thing’s a disaster. It’s not evident and clear to me that the GPLv3 is safe for me to use: that I can take back contributions from others and incorporate them into my software without incurring significant costs. I can’t be sure that the GPLv3 is a license for Free software. It looks like, as with the GNU FDL, some works under this license are free and some are not.
I hope to find clarification of this issue; one FSF blog referred to authors "blacklisting the Affero GPL" when using GPLv3. Until that day, I won’t risk using the GPLv3 for anything I write. I’m happy to stick with the GPLv2.
Further realization: Shoot, this may cause me to switch to XEmacs, when GNU Emacs goes GPLv3 and I’m not interested in publishing my Gnus modifications just because I have autoreply code in there.