Have you released some software under one of the new GNU licenses? If so, you might be interested in our license logos. We just published a couple for LGPLv3 and the GNU AGPL, in addition to the classic red GPLv3 logo.

You can use these logos on your project web page, or even in the software itself if you want. It's an easy and straightforward way to let your users know that the software they use and contribute to is protected by a license that puts software freedom first.

There's been a lot of news coverage recently about the lawsuits Busybox has filed against GPL violators. They're getting a lot of attention because analysts are interested in seeing if the GPL will be tested in a U.S. court. But that's not all the big news in the world of GPL enforcement: there's also a case in France over the Freebox that's starting up. The Freebox is a very popular cable box in France, so it's a high-profile case that's taking a lot of effort and coordination.

Because so much has happened so quickly, some people have speculated that developers' attitudes about GPL enforcement have changed. In reality, I don't think that's the case. To put it simply, filing lawsuits isn't fun. It takes a lot of time and energy that most people would rather spend elsewhere. These are all cases where the developers have tried hard to amicably work with the violators for compliance, and have been met with stonewalling and resistance. Compliance efforts around Freebox have been going on for years, to no avail.

One of the major goals of the GPL, and one of the main reasons so many software authors choose it, is to create a commons of software that everyone can share and build upon. All these developers would be satisfied just to see these companies follow the GPL's rules and contribute to that commons. Unfortunately, when a company fails to do that and won't respond to polite requests, legal action is the only major option left to address the problem. These lawsuits only demonstrate how serious we all are about protecting software freedom.

This is just a quick reminder for you all: tomorrow we'll be hosting an IRC meeting to talk about some of the FUD that's been thrown at GPLv3 lately, and answer your general questions about the license. Join us on freenode in #gplv3-meeting at 18:00 UTC, Wednesday, October 24. GPLv3 has been in the press a lot lately, so we'll have plenty to talk about.

Section 3 of GPLv3 is titled, "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law." That's a little verbose for a section title, but it's actually the most succinct name we could come up with that was still accurate. Section 3 performs a very specific job: it ensures that people who are merely exercising the rights that the GPL gives them won't be threatened by laws like the DMCA. So, if you get some GPLed software that implements DRM, you can take that part out, and the license will protect you.

I bring this up because we still hear people claiming that GPLv3 limits how you can use the software. I'm not sure how else we can respond to this charge; it simply isn't true. We've long believed that it should be possible to use software for any purpose; we said the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License was non-free because it limited this freedom. GPLv3 has no such limits. You can use GPLed software to implement DRM, guide nuclear missiles, or run your own organized crime syndicate—just as you can use it to administer a court, run an animal shelter, or organize your community.

Let's work through one example I saw recently: cell phones. As far as GPLv3 is concerned, a cell phone is treated just the same as any other hardware that includes GPLed software. You'll need to provide recipients with the source code to the software, using one of the methods offered by sections 6(a) and 6(b). If the software on the phone can be updated, you'll also need to provide recipients with Installation Information as well, to prevent tivoization. And of course, the cellular network provider can't deny you access merely because you modified the software—but they can shut you down if your modifications turn out to be malicious and hurt the network. It's all pretty straightforward.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that people are still spreading these misconceptions, however: a lot of the old confusion about GPLv2 is starting to come around again, too. For example, some people have been wondering what the rules are when you link to some GPLv3-covered code. They're the same as they were under GPLv2: the combined work you create needs to be GPLed as well. In fact, most of what you learned about GPLv2 can be applied to GPLv3; changes are the exception, rather than the rule.

Now that GPLv3 has been released and a lot of people are looking at the license with new eyes, this is a great opportunity to clear up a lot of this confusion. If there's something in the license you're not sure about, check our FAQ, and if you don't find your answer there, e-mail us; we'll be happy to help you out. And if you see these sorts of mistakes in the press or community, let us know and we'll respond to it appropriately.

Work on the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 is starting to wrap up. The feedback we've received has helped us understand which issues in the license are confusing for readers. I don't think the license itself is going to see much change as a result—it would be impossible to hammer down every single one of these issues, and it's generally counterproductive to try—but we are going to try to address those concerns through other means, such as our FAQ.

As part of that process, last Thursday night the FSF Compliance Lab held an IRC meeting to discuss all things related to the GNU AGPLv3. We discussed various different issues surrounding the upcoming license—in addition to clearing up some of that confusion and answering specific questions about what the license requires, we also talked about how various groups have reacted to it, possible business models, and more. Here are a couple of excerpts:

<bcs> fjl asked: <fjl> One of the comments/questions on the posted draft was why does the AGPL not take the approach of requiring source if the program is "Performed" for the public. That seems the obvious approach to both the writer and myself. Is it because that would somehow turn it into a contract and not copyright issue?
<bcs> The issue with talking about Performance is, quite simply, that nobody has any idea what it means to "perform" a piece of software.
<bcs> I'm not sure, but I doubt that even Eben would venture a guess.
<bcs> It is appealing, because it does provide a clean solution. But it's tough to conclude that it's legally sound. We'd rather go with something that's a little more complicated, that we know works, than something that's clean but functionally ambiguous.
<thd> Eben has also said in the past that performance has little conformity of treatment in copyright law internationally.
<bcs> I'd forgotten about that, but you're right, yes, thanks.
<fjl> I had assumed it was running it, analagously to performing music from a script or libretto or whatever it's called. I thought this was somewhat legally established interpretation (IANAL, of course)
<bcs> fjl: That interpretation would make sense to me -- but I've been told that there is no legally established interpretation.

<johnsu01> NZHeretic asked, Is part of the problem that the Business sector recognize the business model usage for GPL/LGPL but not for the AGPL. Might it not be a good idea to produce some study to show where the AGPL would be truly useful to Businesses ( Keeping a commons open )?
<bcs> I doubt we need to do that. I think a few companies are going to do that for us.
<_ivan> <--
<bcs> For all we were slagging on companies earlier, there are a few who are very interested in the AGPL. Like all the companies who sell SaaS to other companies.
<_ivan> that's me :)
<bcs> Like _ivan's company, yes. :)
<bcs> And companies like SugarCRM, and Alfresco, and Zimbra. I'm not saying they're all going to adopt AGPLv3, or have even noticed it, but they are looking at this issue.
<bcs> And they have a lot of voice in today's Web 2.0 bubble. So when they start talking about how important the AGPL, or something like it, is to them, others will take notice.

Thanks to everybody who came by and participated. It went so well that we're going to go ahead and do it again, this time at 18:00 UTC on Wednesday, October 24, in #gplv3-meeting on freenode. This will be a general question and answer session; feel free to drop by and ask any question about any GNU license, past, present, or future. We hope to see you there.