At present, companies that distribute GPL-licensed software must make the source code publicly available, including any modifications they've made. Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends, it doesn't cover Web companies that use such software to offer their services through the Web, as they're not actually distributing the software.
, the next version of the free software license, a draft of which is expected to be released , may close this loophole, GPL author and Free Software Foundation head said in an interview with publisher O'Reilly Media.
Stallman said developers may be encouraged to add a command to their GPL-licensed Web application that lets users download the source code. The inclusion of this command in modified versions of the program will then be enforced by an additional clause in GPL 3.
"We're looking at an approach where programs used (on a public server) will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running," Stallman said. "If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program."
This change would have no effect on existing software but could be added by developers to future versions of a particular program, according to Stallman. He said this was only a "tentative plan" as it has not yet been studied fully to see whether it would work.
GPL 3 may also include a clause to penalize companies thatand a clause to prevent companies from using digital rights management in free software applications. Stallman said one possible way that it might handle DRM is by forcing companies to distribute the signature keys of the binaries of free software applications.
"We are thinking about a clause requiring distribution, with the software, of any signature keys necessary to sign the binary so that it can run and fully utilize the machine's facilities. This would prevent the perversion of a supposedly 'free' program, which nominally you are allowed to change, except that modified versions are prevented from functioning," said Stallman.
One clause that is unlikely to be significantly changed in GPL 3 is the clause that forbids translations, although the Free Software Foundation is considering allowing translated versions that can be used in only one country.
"Authorizing a translation of the GPL is very risky, because a mistake could be disastrous worldwide. Most of the world's major languages are known by neither me nor Eben Moglen (general counsel for the FSF). We would have to rely on translators who are lawyers but not necessarily free software supporters, and we could not check their work. Thus, mistakes would be rather likely," said Stallman.
"We're thinking about the idea of authorizing translations that are valid for one country only. That could reduce the risk to the point where we could consider it," he said.
Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London.