The article is mostly fair and well-researched. I just wanted to note a couple things. GPLv3 is now compatible with Apache 2.0, which makes a large new body of code available to developers. GPLv2 allows users to remove DRM too (without saying so directly) so there's really no difference there; the only distinction is that GPLv3 has to deal with the DMCA and make sure modification of GPL software isn't illegal circumvention.

Think free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Specifically, it (the Free Software Foundation) believes that all software should be available without cost and should be freely distributable. This philosophy informs everything the FSF does, and particularly the GPL.

You have it wrong. The word free does not refer to "at no cost" (free beer). The term free refers to the term liberty (free speech). Free Software refers to software that gives the user of the software four specific liberties. These liberties are: the right to use the software, the right to study and modify the software, the right to distribute copies of the software and the right to publish modifications of the software. If the software does not give the user all four liberties of free software, then it is non-free software and the FSF believes that ALL non-free software are evil.

More is explained about the FSF's belief at the following essay at the GNU website.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The FSF's position on Digital Restriction Mismanagement is quite clear and is explained in the following essay. Therefore, it shouldn't be too hard to understand why such language is in the GPL3.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/opposing-drm.html

Anonymous is right. The Free Software Foundation has no problem what so ever with people who sell GPL-ed software. That's a pretty major error in the article. *Tisk* *Tisk*

1. If you use GPL’d software to create a new product, you can’t sue anyone who uses your product to create a new product with patent infringement

Your wording could be misunderstood. Here's how I interpret it (I'm not a lawyer):

The company can still sue someone for patent infringement, just not for the patents that cover the software (and this software only).

So, if a company has a patent on "doing foo" and a patent on "doing bar", and they release some software that "does foo" under the GPL, then they grant anyone a license to "do foo" with the software as well.

But, if someone else later modifies the software to "do bar", that's still infringement. If someone "does foo" in some way that is not related to the software (they write their own proprietary "foo" software, for example), that's also still infringement.

(See the latest GPLv3 draft, section 11)

2. if your company uses the open-source Eclipse development environment to write Java code, [...] you may end up with GPL3 libraries intermingling with your end product.

This possibility is remote, at best, at least if I understand the purpose of a development environment correctly. The fact that the development environment is under the GPL does not affect the code that you write with it. Similarly, it was always possible to use the GNU C compiler to build proprietary applications.

3. For companies like TiVo, which need to lock out changes to enforce digital rights management (DRM, more on this in a second), it is pretty much a deal killer.

True, although, in my opinion, the deal is a very fair one: "We give you this software. You don't have to pay any per-unit licensing fees. We just ask you to keep the software free for all of its users."

If a device manufacturer can't do this, they're free to write their own code. If some software authors are fine with device manufacturers using their code to force DRM misfeatures upon consumers, they'll use a more liberal license.

In the past, keeping the source code secret was the way to make software non-free. The GPL addressed this. Now device manufacturers are switching to other ways of making software non-free. Now GPLv3 addresses these as well. Not a big deal, really.

I agree with you completely. Just wanted to point out a minor glitch that is often misinterpreted:

[QUOTE]If some software authors are fine with device manufacturers using their code to force DRM misfeatures upon consumers, they'll use a more liberal license.[/QUOTE]

Instead of "...more liberal license.." that should be "...weaker license...". Because a license that is more lax in the protection it offers it's users (that includes authors and end-users alike) is really just that - a weaker license. Such (weak) licenses encourage fragmentation and do not ensure distributed improvements come back to the community that built the original work.

So while many are happily labelling the FSF as a band of rabid fanatics, they're completely overlooking historical and current evidence of software projects under weaker licenses being misappropriated by commercial entities.

Some authors might actually want a weak copyright. That's their prerogative and no one can tell them otherwise. They have a right to choose the license under which they wish to make their work available.

But in general, a weak copyright isn't a great idea.

There are a few errors in the article.

First, with the last paragraph, The Eclipse system uses libraries. There is a variant of the GPL, the LGPL that is written for software libraries. That liscense states that changes to the library are covered like the GPL, but that programs written using the library are not. While many users will want to use the GPL for the software, many do not. FSF recognizes this, and it is specificly allowed. A great many commercial (non-free to FSF) programs ARE written using FSF produced LGPL libraries. That will not change. Eclipse is still OK.

Second, FSF has always allowed for dual liscensing. It is written into the GPL, and always has been. If a program is important to you, and your business needs require you to release it as a propriatary product, you can contact the origionator and purchase a propriatory liscense if the author is willing. There are several companies that use this for thier business model. MySQL and Trolltech (QT libraries) are examples of this. You can't do this with all software under the GPL, but it's worth checking. The Linux kernal, for instance is only available under GPL V2. It is unlikly to change because there are literally thousands of authors, who would have to be contacted for permission.

Third. The restrictions you are concerned about occur only if you distribute the software. The GPL does not make such restrictions for any software used internally by an organization.

Still, with these minor glitches, an excellent article. Keep up the good work.

"For companies with large patent portfolios or that depend on locking users out of their software, the new version is going to be a major concern."

Total misresearched and unfounded statement...

Read Bob Sutor's blog:
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1698

Hint 1: Bob Sutor is the Vice President of Standards and Open Source for the IBM Corporation

Hint 2: IBM: LARGEST EVER PATENT HOLDER IN THE INDUSTRY

Why not quote Bob Sutor to provide a balanced report ?
Can you see why his opinion is relevant ?
See, it's not that difficult if you try.

Fear, uncertainty, doubt, anyone ?