The first draft of GPLv3 is up... A few notes: 1. RMS did not add the much-feared affero-GPL clause that triggers the GPL if you're running a public (web) service. This would have caused a huge schism and I applaud RMS for recognizing that fact and being pragmatic! 2. They added a narrow patent-retaliation clause which is (I think) narrower than the one that the Apache foundation adopted awhile back. 3. They state that no GPLed program is part of a "technological protection measure" for the purposes of the DMCA, etc. There is some other, related anti-DRM text added. They also ammended the definition of "complete corresponding source code" such that I can't give you a box that only runs signed binaries with a bunch of GPLed software on it unless I also give you the signing program, keys, etc. Though they don't explicitly mention trusted (treacherous) computing, I think this is targeted at that. 4. They're taking a new tack on compatibility with other licenses. They enumerate the kinds of additional requirements other licenses can or cannot make. In particular, I think this is designed to help with the problem that came up a year or two ago when the Apache foundation added a patent retaliation clause and FSF felt that it wasn't compatible with the GPL and this caused a big mess. Otherwise, there seems to be bits of fine-tuning to deal with copyright laws in other countries better. It'll probably be a mess for Linux which is explicitly GPLv2. I understand how Linus made that decision at the time back in 1991; he was afraid that RMS would do something crazy in a future version. But they probably want a lot of this fine tuning but it would probably be a nightmare to try to get every contributor to sign off on it. GPLv3 Draft — GPLv3 | 
