Canada: An Open Source Community Divided Is GPLv3 A Blind Alley Or A Path To The Future?

Last Updated: August 22 2008
Article by Eric Boehm

This article previously appeared in the Ontario Bar Association's Information Technology,, vol. 9, no. 2, June 2008.

Last year, the first major revision in 16 years to the leading open source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 3 (GPLv3), was released.1 First promulgated in 1989 by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), GPL was last significantly revised in 1991 (with GPLv2). Since then, GPL has become extremely successful and has been adopted by a majority of open source projects,2 including most notably the popular Linux operating system in 1992. For this reason, the development of GPLv3 was hotly contested and widely followed.

While GPL sorely needed modernizing to reflect the growing acceptance and commercialization of open source software, there were divergent opinions on how to deal with the many technical and legal developments that have taken place since GPLv2 was released. When the finalized GPLv3 was released, on June 29, 2007, it met mixed reviews in the open source and technology industries and, for the reasons discussed below, a year later the markets remain hesitant to adopt it.

Notable Features of GPL

GPL and its variants3 are based on what Richard Stallman, founder of FSF, refers to as the "copyleft" movement, which uses traditional copyright law to create a so-called public license that permits a broad right to use, modify or distribute open source software. A person who wishes to modify or distribute software licensed under GPL (or "GPL'd software," as it is called in the trade) cannot place any greater copyright restrictions on the original and modified portions of the software than are already in GPL. The purpose of this approach is explained by FSF in reference to its own GNU software program:

[O]ur aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we "copyleft" it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.4

Thus, GPL (and most open source licenses for that matter) is based on the principle of giving software users the same rights as the author and providing them with four fundamental freedoms: (1) the freedom to run the program as they wish; (2) the freedom to study the source code and change it so it does what they wish; (3) the freedom to distribute exact copies up to and including replication; and (4) the freedom to distribute copies of modified versions up to and including publication.

It is important to note that GPL permits the sale and use of GPL'd software or products containing GPL'd code for commercial purposes as long as the user or distributor complies with the terms of GPL.


GPLv3 was released after two years of public consultations and four major discussion drafts. With version 3, FSF set out to correct what it saw as pernicious risks and market erosion of the spirit of GPL to encourage software "freedom." However, the changes are controversial and arguably create as many problems as they solve.

Prevention of DRM Protections

GPLv3 takes a stance against so-called digital rights management (DRM) laws, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States5 (DMCA) and similar laws elsewhere. These laws forbid circumventing DRM hardware or software locks that seek to protect content such as software code, music or movies. The concern in the open source community was that the DRM anti-circumvention laws could be used to prevent people from otherwise exercising their rights to modify software distributed under GPL.

To counter this concern, section 3 of GPLv3 provides that where software is distributed (be it in source code format or embedded in hardware), the party distributing software must "waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures" under anti-circumvention laws.

Section 3 has been subtly drafted and has been misinterpreted to mean that software licensed under GPLv3 cannot contain DRM at all – which is not the case; it simply provides that in distributing GPL'd software, a party must give up its right to prevent circumvention of DRM by invoking the DMCA or similar laws.


GPLv3 is also intended to prevent another related "major danger" raised by DRM, so-called tivoization (a term that Stallman coined to describe a situation in which consumer products use hardware locks to prevent users from accessing or modifying GPL'd software embedded in the device).6 This is a common practice for many products, particularly for products such as DVD players, videogame consoles, routers and other devices, many of which contain GPL'd software that is locked down to prevent such illegal activities as causing a wireless router to exceed legally permitted ranges and frequencies, or to restrict illicit copying of protected content such as movies.

The "tivo" in "tivoization" refers to the TiVo personal video recorder, which contains embedded software licensed under GPLv2, including Linux. To comply with GPLv2, TiVo made available the source code of the GPL'd software as an Internet download from its website. However, although the source code could be downloaded, modified and compiled by users and loaded onto the TiVo, the device contained hardware locks to prevent modified software from running.

This use of DRM, according to Stallman, runs counter to the principle of software freedom, and if a company wishes to take advantage of free software, its users should be free of "digital handcuffs" and have no "limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it." Thus GPLv3 "makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them."7 In doing so, GPL has moved from simply being a software license to a tool to regulate the hardware domain as well.

The anti-tivoization clauses would have a disastrous result for TiVo and other businesses using code licensed under GPLv3. If TiVo were to permit users to alter and run the code used on its device, they could, for example, alter the system to prevent subscription billing, which would undermine an important method of sustaining the commercial basis for TiVo products. Similarly, the Sony Playstation game console, which runs a variant of Linux, could be easily modified to facilitate online cheating. It could also undermine attempts to authenticate transactions by using private digital signatures on security-dependent devices. Partly in response to these concerns, and after much clamour and debate, the anti-tivoization clause was ultimately watered down during the GPLv3 drafting process to essentially cover only consumer products, not medical devices or products distributed to businesses; however, the fundamental concerns remain for consumer products.

Restrictions on Patent Rights

GPLv3 was amended during the version 3 consultation process to specifically prevent patent arrangements like the November 2, 2006 cooperation agreement between Microsoft and Novell.8 The Microsoft-Novell agreement was a complex arrangement ostensibly intended to foster interoperability of Microsoft and Linuxbased OpenOffice software. As part of the arrangement, Microsoft agreed that it would not enforce its purported patent rights in certain elements of GPL'd software being distributed by Novell.

FSF considers such side deals as creating a precedent to force users to pay for patent licenses to use otherwise "free" software. It refers to such licenses as "discriminatory" since it restricts or prevents the exercise of rights granted under GPLv3. Accordingly, GPLv3 restricts patent arrangements in two ways. First, section 11 of GPLv3 attempts to specifically prevent such discrimination agreements:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.9

Second, GPLv3 provides for an explicit patent license. Under this provision, any entity that contributes software to a project under section 11 of GPLv3 grants with that software, a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license" covering the contributor's "essential patent claims" to the software. The intent is to prevent contributors from subsequently invoking their patent rights against the software project to which it contributed.10

The cumulative effectiveness of GPLv3's patent clauses is far from clear, and remains a topic of great controversy.11 Microsoft, for its part, challenges the authority of these provisions of GPLv3, since it is not a party to the GPLv3 license and does not distribute such software; Microsoft also states that it does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of its agreement with Novell in light of the introduction of GPLv3.12

Compatibility with Other Open Source Licenses

Open source software comes in dozens of flavours of licenses, many with terms incompatible with the GPL.13 A common problem for open source vendors is that GPL permits only software with different kinds of licenses to be linked or compiled together with GPL'd software where the licenses do not contradict or conflict with each other. Section 7 of GPLv3 attempts to foster license compatibility by allowing distributors to incorporate into GPLv3 certain optional terms (such as warranty disclaimers, requirements to preserve copyright notices and indemnification requirements) that are often found in other licenses.

Despite section 7, the problem remains that outside the narrow range of permitted optional terms, GPLv3 still severely limits the combination of different types of open source software. Even versions 2 and 3 are incompatible; since each version requires that any combined code be licensed under the same license, GPLv2 and GPLv3 code cannot be combined or modified and distributed under either license.

Increase Scope of Material Covered

The scope of GPLv3 has been broadened from software to "any material that can be copyrighted"; this would include, for example, topographical circuits or semiconductor mask works.

Termination Remedies

The original GPL provided that the license would terminate immediately upon its terms being breached. GPLv3 is more consistent with software licensing norms by permitting a party who has violated a license term to remedy the breach within 30 days of notice by the copyright holder.

Market Reaction and GPLv3 Adoption Issues

A year after GPLv3 was finalized, there is still no clear indication of the extent to which the open source marketplace will embrace GPLv3. Many assumed there would be automatic adoption, which has not been the case. And since GPLv3 has no retroactive effect (i.e., software distributed under GPLv2 will not automatically move to GPLv3), open source programmers and distributors are free to continue to use GPLv2 (or any other variant of open source licenses, for that matter).

A few months after the official release of GPL, Evans Data Corporation published its regular Open Source Software Development survey, which indicated that over two-thirds of respondents would not be adopting GPLv3 in the next year and that 43% would "never" implement the new license.14 One of the problems, according to John Andrews of Evans Data, is that "GPLv3 is controversial because it imposes restrictions on what you can do with programs implemented under this license. Developers are confused and divided about those restrictions, with fairly equal numbers agreeing with the restrictions, disagreeing with them, or thinking they will be unenforceable."15

Palamida Inc. provides a central clearinghouse for tracking projects under the different variants of GPL. It reports that, as of April 21, 2008, out of more than 30,000 projects, 2,270 have converted to GPLv3, and calculates that 5,000 projects will be converted by the end of 2008.16 Although the number of projects converted is significant, most projects are small, and it is difficult to determine from these numbers the overall penetration rates for GPLv3.

Some major GPL projects and software vendors have adopted or stated their intention to adopt GPLv3. For example, Dan Frye, the vice-president of Open Systems Development at IBM, a major open source software contributor, declared that GPLv3 is "absolutely a commercially viable license."17 Red Hat, Novell and MySQL appear to be on side with IBM and are in the process of converting much of their software to GPLv3. And since GPLv3 is promulgated by FSF, it is naturally FSF's stated intention to ultimately transition all its software projects to GPLv3, which would include the GNU operating system and related GNU projects.

On the other hand, there are some significant abstainers. Linus Torvalds, the originator of Linux and an influential proponent of open source software, has loudly proclaimed his misgivings on the various drafts of GPLv3, and ultimately concluded that the Linux kernel would not be licensed under GPLv3, citing the "antitivoization" measures as his primary objection. Manufacturers of consumer products will almost certainly avoid GPLv3 software because of its anti-tivoization provisions.

Adoption of GPLv3 may also be slowed as a result of the incompatibility of GPLv2 and GPLv3. Software licensed under GPLv2 may simply remain under GPLv2 software until decommissioned or obsolete. Many vendors are almost certainly adopting a wait-and-see stance, waiting to see if a critical mass of vendors will adopt GPLv3 enabling the market to reach a tipping point in favour of GPLv3. Others, pointing to Torvalds' (and others') decision not to adopt version 3, may simply continue to use GPLv2, or, concerned with GPL's increased scope of activism, may turn to other, less restrictive licenses.

The stated purpose of GPL is "freedom." The debate about GPLv3 centres on whether GPL has been adapted to maintain this freedom or if, to the contrary, FSF's evangelistic zeal to prevent new types of uses and certain types of intellectual property rights actually restricts such freedoms. But aside from the philosophical debates, whether GPLv3 will be adopted may ultimately be a question of momentum; if a critical mass of projects converts to GPLv3, most GPL projects will likely simply migrate to GPLv3 for compatibility. However, if key projects such as Linux never adopt GPLv3, this version of the license may either lead to orphaning the license or perhaps dividing GPL development into two separate camps.

Considerations Before Adopting or Licensing Software Under GPLv3

Although the meaning and enforceability of much of GPLv2 remains for the most part untested by the courts, the ultimate effect of the novelties in GPLv3 – particularly relating to DRM and patents – is even more uncertain. Companies faced with the choice of adopting GPLv3 for their products or of obtaining software or products under GPLv3 will need to carefully assess how these changes may relate to their specific situation.

These issues are more than academic. Open source issues will almost certainly become more important in the coming years, and GPLv3 will likely be in the forefront of these issues.

In September 2007, the Federal Court of Utah dismissed the SCO Group's claim against Novell that put into question not just whether Linux software could be licensed under GPL if it included UNIX software supposedly owned by SCO, but also the constitutionality and enforceability of GPL itself.18 Furthermore, open source stakeholders have over the past year become much more active in successfully using litigation to enforce the terms of open source licenses.19 Although these recent lawsuits did not relate to GPLv3, they reflect a growing assertiveness by the open source community, and have helped clarify and legitimize open source licenses. More than ever, companies must understand when and how to implement open source licenses and carefully consider the risks and benefits of software licensed under GPLv3.


1 The official text of GPLv3 can be found at

2 The leading Internet open source software repository,, reports that as of April 2, 2008, 82% of its open source projects use GPL-type licenses . Other leading GPL'd software products include the Samba file and print server suite, and the MySQL database.

3 There are several variants on GPL, including the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which provides simpler and more permissive terms than GPL; and the GNU Free Documentation License, which has similar principles for texts (used notably in the Wikipedia online community encyclopedia).

4 Richard Stallman, "What is Copyleft?" online: accessed April 2, 2008.

5 112 Stat. 2860 (1998). Canada has no similar DRM anti-circumvention laws and, as a result, the addition of section 3 to GPLv3 has no practical effect under Canadian law.

6 Richard Stallman, "Why Upgrade to GPLv3," online: GNU Operating System accessed April 2, 2008.

7 Ibid.

8 Laurie Flynn, "2 Giants in a Deal Over Linux," New York Times (November 2, 2006), online: www. accessed April 2, 2008.

9 Oddly enough, even though the Microsoft-Novell agreement was the catalyst for the development of this clause, section 11 of GPLv3 would not apply to that agreement because section 11 explicitly "grandfathers" agreements signed prior to March 28, 2007. This was likely intentionally done with a goal of allowing users of Novell's software products to take advantage of Microsoft's covenants, and allowing Novell to distribute GPLv3 software when it could have otherwise been in breach of GPLv3 for its arrangement with Microsoft.

10 GPLv2 was silent on patent licenses, although there is certainly a strong argument that there is an implied patent license or a covenant not to sue for patent infringement for use of software that was distributed by the patent holder.

11 For example, see the detailed analysis in Francis M. Buono and McLean Sieverding, "GPL, Version 3: The Perils of Ideological Extremism" Les Nouvelles (September 2007) at 471.

12 "Microsoft Statement about GPLv3" (July 5, 2007), online: 05statement.mspx April 2, 2008.

13 The Open Source Initiative, an established organization dedicated to promoting open source software, lists 71 approved open source licenses.

14 Evans Data Corporation provides regularly updated IT industry market intelligence based on in-depth surveys of the global developer population. The biannual report is available by subscription from

15 "GPLv3 shunned, survey says," InfoWorld Magazine (September 24, 2007).

16 Palamida Inc. is a leading supplier of software and services for adopting and using open source in large organizations. A detailed breakdown can be found at

17 Stephan Shankland, "Free Software Foundation Releases GPL3," Cnet News (June 29, 2007), online: 3-6194139.html accessed April 2, 2008.

18 SCO Group v. Novell Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68371, (D. Utah, Sept. 14, 2007).

19 In addition to settled claims filed in Germany, the Netherlands and Korea since 2004, the Software Freedom Law Center, a United States group that campaigns on behalf of open source developers, filed four high-profile lawsuits against Verizon Communications and others, alleging non-compliance with GPLv2 by distributing GPL'd BusyBox software in various devices without making the source code available.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.