Developers, is there any chance KTorrent will be GPL3.0 soon? I personally like the license more than 2.0

We haven't considered that yet, I don't see much advantages in switching licenses, but I haven't really read it yet.

The GPL3's anti-DRM clause is disconcerting ... what it basically boils down to is that if you're in a field where the law would prohibit someone from doing something, you can't use GPL3 code. Period.

Tivo can't allow people to access DRM'd code as it would break Tivo's license to do what they're doing. The licensor is unlikely to accept "we didn't do that, the user took a publically-available hack and applied it to work around the license!" and then yank Tivo's license to distribute. Which would, in effect, kill Tivo. I'm not actually concerned with Tivo dying per se, but with the concept that GPL software (and, by extention, OSS in general) is dangerous for enterprises to use in their products. This does nothing but feed the fear, uncertainty and doubt about OSS.

I believe this is the basic reason why Linus has vowed to stay away from GPL3, and it makes sense to me.

That being said, ktorrent is not my code, my sole contributions have come in the form of suggestions, so it's not my call.

Would you be upset by someone producing a "torrent" appliance which used ktorrent patched to only allow torrents from a "clean" source (i.e., the enterprise producing such an appliance) in a form that could not be patched by a user to re-allow all torrents? If you would, then GPL3 is for you. If that doesn't really bother you, GPL2 is still an option. If you count on this type of exposure (hahaha...), GPL2 is a must.

The patent-protection clause only really helps in arcane situations (like the Novell-MS deal). But if Sun decided to sue you for some alleged patent infringement, GPL3 won't protect you. As the arcane situation has occurred, however, that may be worth it for you. Again, up to you.

>> The GPL3's anti-DRM clause is disconcerting

To some groups.. certainly.

>> Tivo can't allow people to access DRM'd code as it would break Tivo's license to do what they're doing.

Well, maybe we should just make everything public domain and be done with it. No more troubles for anyone!

******

OK, how about this suggestion. A nonprofit is set up to hold source code with a charter allowing them to license the source under a set of scenarios and as per some guideline/vote/or other.

You make the code GPL3, then you sit back comfortably knowing that those that are willing to look for and find nonDRM solutions will be slightly rewarded. As far as KTorrent is concerned, they will have lower overhead costs.

Those that can't overcome the DRM thang, can apply for a license from the KTorrent foundation (a GPL2 license, for example).

There are a number of loopholes that the GPL3 tries to fix. No license may ever close what we (I, you, or someone else) might consider a loophole, but version 3 of the GPL is a better license that the GPL2 in a lot of ways.

Mysql profits from the GPL. This isn't really about profitting, but certainly most of us probably would feel better knowing that those looking for nonDRM solutions will not be in the same boat as those simply jumping into a DRM type of business taking advantage of code contributed by those wanting GPL type protections, ie, allowing the end user to have freedom that can't be curtailed by a vendor (the vendor being an end user too but wearing the hat of a rights-curtailing distributor). And yes, presumably the foundation would charge money. Without letting everyone remain at the GPL2 level, the foundation can then give special licenses when the justification is whatever it might consider good justification.

Remember DRM is anti-FOSS in spirit. DRM is all about the end user not having control. FOSS is all about giving the end user (who can even be a developer) as much control as possible.

The GPL is a superior license to most FOSS licenses. The GPL3 is the best version of the GPL in a lot of ways.

This link is to a piece titled *Samba author: GPLv3 has further to go*
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/s ... 081,00.htm

If you read the GPL3 you see that it was watered down from earlier drafts in order to compromise with more constituents. I also think there are many ways to bypass the patent protections through proxy patent litigation groups in which you own a stake (I think, but IANAL).

In any case, the GPL3 tries to bring the rest of the GPL up to date by improving some noncontroversial areas in which the GPL2 was showing its age. Sample areas of improvement include (iirc): curing violations, ways to satisfy distribution of source, internationalization, possibly more legally robust language overall, etc.

Didn't mean to appear to sound pushy in the other post, but I react that way sometimes when I get the impression someone might be trying to shovel something underneath the radars [We all submarine to an extent at times; I don't mean to make anyone stand out.. just indicating that on this occasion my buttons were "pushed" so to speak.]

As Andrew said, the FSF went through a lot of work and heard from a lot of players. Even Linus found the last version to be much more palatable. In Linus' case, he might be affected personally because he knows TiVo in particular contributes to the kernel without it being a requirement on them. But the GPLv3 is not to kill TiVo. It's in trying to deal with the future where companies less generous than TiVo will always seek to exploit all sorts of loopholes. Look at ISO. It had loopholes, but things worked until Microsoft got into the game. Microsoft has a knack for exploiting loopholes to the max in a sense spoiling the loopholes for others (stock options exploitation also comes to mind; trade secret protection for business practices that violate the law might be another area).

I see Microsoft taking advantage of the GPLv2 in order to have their XBox use Linux against the community once they work their Windows hooks into the system through firmware, unorthodox instruction execution, and what not. [And again, I don't want to imply the GPLv3 is without loopholes or solves all of these ones mentioned. It's not "anti-DRM"; it's trying to protect "freedoms" and what not when the software is used on hardware that doesn't work like a general purpose PC.. or so I'd like to think that should be the goal.]