Georg Greve, who heads up the European arm of the Free Software Foundation, made some interesting comments this week regarding the forthcoming V3 version of the GPL. One of the main drivers of the revision process is to make the GPL more consistent as a global framework. There is a general consensus that the GPL does need to be revised. It appears that in the process of doing this regional groups might be given the ability to add to the license in order to bring it inline with the legal framework of their geographies.

Georg is suggesting that the GPL V3 should carry “penalties against those who patent software or use anti-piracy technology”. The first suggestion seems to be a little confused as the current rules already prevent distribution of software under the GPL if that software is encumbered by patents. Is Georg suggesting that any company which uses software patents in general should not be able to distribute any software under the GPL, even if that software does not include patented technology? I can’t imagine that is what he’s thinking. Some of the largest benefactors to the Open Source movement include IBM and HP. These are companies with a LOT of software patents. 

Georg’s second suggestion is perhaps the more interesting one. He has suggested that GPL3 should explicitly exclude the distribution of software which implements or uses DRM. The implication of such a move would be many and varied. As and example you could kiss good bye to the prospects of having next generation HD-DVD replay on the Linux platform.

I’ve never understood why some people seem to believe that content producers should not have the right, if they choose, to protect their works. In my view that’s sort of like saying that I should be prevented from putting a lock on the door of my house. [Caveat – with the ability to implement DRM comes, I believe, a responsibility on the side of the content producers: They should not seek to use DRM to undermine the existing legal norms of “Fair use”. Unfortunately too many in the music and video industry seem to want to roll back these rights and are using DRM to make that happen. In the long run this undermines appropriate uses of DRM] 

Spectacularly, Georg is suggesting that the content producers should be recompensed by implementing a “… cultural flat fee” on web access. I really never thought I would ever hear someone in the Free Software movement suggest such a thing. Perhaps this is just a particularly European view; a region where we seem happy to whack on yet another tax with the least provocation [Is this really the best way to fund aid for Africa?]. Note to Georg: Have you heard of the digital divide? Do we really think taxing internet access is going to improve the ability of the poor and disadvantaged in society to have access to the tools and information of our increasinlgy knowledge based society.

Free Software will only ever become mainstream and truly successful if large commercial companies and public sector organizations can be persuaded to buy it. In my experience one major roadblock to this happening is those organizations discomfort with the GPL and a licensing scheme. You have to ask yourself whether Georg’s proposals for V3 make the GPL more or less attractive to these organizations. I have my view.