Free Software Foundation Explains GPL 3.0 Vision

The requirements could include preservation of copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations of the code, and different warranty disclaimers.

They could also include limitations on the use of names of contributors and on the use of trademarks for publicity purposes.

"In general, we permit these requirements in added terms because many free software licenses include them and we consider them to be unobjectionable.

"Because we support trademark fair use, the limitations on the use of trademarks may seek to enforce only what is required by trademark law, and may not prohibit what would constitute fair use," the authors said.

While the draft document retained the existing definition of "source code," it adds an explicit definition of "object code" as "any non-source version of a work."

Object code is not restricted to a narrow technical meaning and is to be understood broadly as including any form of the work other than the preferred form for making modifications to it.

"Object code therefore includes any kind of transformed version of source code, such as byte code. The definition of object code also ensures that licensees cannot escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded source or obfuscated programming," the document said.

Karen Copenhaver, the general counsel for Black Duck Software Inc., said a primary issue to be vetted by the community during the GPL 3.0 review process is whether the right to share and improve software licensed under the GPL extends to end users.

"In other words, is a user of a Web-based application that is based on modified GPL-licensed code entitled to request and receive the source code for the application? This could be one of the great debates during this process," she said.

Check out eWEEK.coms for the latest open-source news, reviews and analysis.