Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Version 3 of the GNU General Public License: Major Changes for Open Source Software Licensing
The Free Software Foundation ('FSF') this summer published the final, official new version of the GNU General Public License, GPLv3. The new version is the result of extensive public comment and heated debate, and could have far-reaching effects on the use of open source software. GPLv3 is the successor to GPL version 2 (GPLv2), first published in 1991, used extensively today, and among the most popular open source licenses available.
GPLv3's key changes include:
- A new approach to patents, including an explicit patent license and a patent non-assertion clause,
- A new requirement that companies conveying GPL-covered code in 'user products' provide the information necessary to install modified versions on those products (a.k.a. 'anti-tivoization'),
- A new approach to digital rights management ('DRM'), including an express waiver of anti-circumvention rights, and
- New language implementing the GPL's 'viral effect,' affecting when it applies and what is required.
New Terms for Patents
Responding to what it calls the 'unwise and ill-considered application of patent law to software' in the years since it released GPLv2, the FSF includes in GPLv3 provisions focused on patents that address in different ways the patents of: 1) entities that modify or otherwise contribute to software that is covered by the GPL, 2) entities that distribute GPL-covered software (whether or not they also modify or otherwise contribute to the software), and 3) non-contributing, non-distributing entities that enter into patent-related agreements with contributors or distributors. See Free Software Foundation, GPLv3 First Discussion Draft Rationale, p.3, at http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.