Rewriting GPL No Easy Task

The issue of Web services has to be considered, he said. Some in the community are calling for a strong "copyleft" license with code that is used and changed to be returned to all. Others want the opposite.

"I do not believe that we will be reach consensus on this front, so I believe the license will have to accommodate options as to the question of Web services, but this must be squared with the ideological pursuit of freedom," he said.

Another change to the technical paradigm that the license must address is the issue of trusted computing and the threat it poses. "If I knew what the solution to the problem of trusted computing was, we would have a draft version of it in circulation by now," Moglen said. "There is also no belief now that the GPL violates the constitution or IP law, and we will not be held back by the actions of SCO [Group] and [its CEO] Darl McBride.

"I do not yet know what we will do in this regard, and we will have to choose among the options before involving others in the question of the license and its contents," Moglen said, promising that a document will be provided that gives the major rationale for the license choices made and the options considered.

Some Linux users, such as Con Zymaris, CEO of Cybersource Pty. Ltd., a Linux and open-source solutions company in Melbourne, Australia, said trust is a critical issue that extends beyond the IT industry.

"We, as IT professionals, must act as stewards for the coming century, which, more than any previous era, will be built atop information technology," Zymaris said. "If we want a free society in the future, we must prevent any organization or collective from attaining such a level of immense control over the platforms of the future."

Everyone seeking input will be given a chance to comment and propose changes to the license, Moglen said. "The new Software Freedom Law Center will be used for this part of the process, and all will be given a chance to express their views, regardless of size and power," he said.

Read here about the role of the Software Freedom Law Center.

"The dignity of every stakeholder must and will be respected. No one will get everything they want, including Mr. Stallman, but everyone will feel heard. The minimum time for such a process is a year, and I have no idea what the maximum is. But there must be a date that allows closure and after which it is over. People must know when we will be through," he said.

In the end, this will be a legislative process in a stateless way, in a legislature whose users are not voters or geographic constituencies, but the proponents of powerful ideas. "It is going to be a hard scrabble to get what you want into the license. Everyone will feel that way. In my career of almost 20 years as an educator, I have never faced a problem as complex as this. This will be a community experience and process," Moglen said.

While the process is going to be a screaming match in some ways, it is also going to be a noble effort when all is done. "While there will be lots of stuff we will not be proud of, this is an extraordinary adventure.

"There are billions of dollars riding on this now; lots of peoples livelihoods depend on us getting this right," Moglen said, before concluding that "we will outlast the richer and more powerful forces in the software industry that seemed invincible some 10 years ago."

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