The latest draft of the GNU General Public Licence (GPL) has caused more ructions in the Linux community.

Some have damned it for seemingly legitimising the controversial Novell/Microsoft agreement on intellectual property rights, while others say it has effectively closed the door on future collaboration between the open-source and proprietary software industries.

Meanwhile lawyers have questioned whether the proposed changes in draft three of the GPL – some of which are designed to block Novell/Microsoft-style IP indemnification deals in the future – can work without having a detrimental effect on the use of software patents elsewhere.

The GNU GPL is the world’s most widely used free software licence. Almost three-quarters of all free software packages, including some Linux operating systems, are estimated to be distributed under this licence. So the potential for disruption is huge.

The exact terms of the third draft remain open to interpretation, and are no doubt being pored over by at least one highly paid legal expert in the expectation that it will lead to an avalanche of software patent-related work.

At the heart of this row is a so-called “grandfather clause” which has been inserted into the draft at the behest of the GPL’s primary sponsor, the Free Software Foundation (FSF). This clause aims to slam the door on deals like the Novell/Microsoft agreement by preventing distributors “from colluding with patent holders to provide discriminatory protection from patents”.

What so enraged the founder of the GNU Project and the FSF, Richard Stallman, is the fact that Novell and Microsoft have agreed not to sue in the event of any dispute over patents or intellectual property (IP). To Stallman, private alliances like this, and even the very idea of intellectual property in software, are the antithesis of what open source should be.

So far, Novell has said it is confident that it can continue to work under the open-source licence and maintain its agreement with Microsoft; but that position could change by the time the final licence is published this summer.

Draft three will be open for discussion for 60 days, during which time the FSF will accept input from interested parties and make any changes that it feels are necessary. After this period, it will release a “last call” draft, followed by another 30 days for discussion before the final text is approved. In theory, then, peace will reign after 90 days, but I wouldn’t bet on it.