Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
"Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message
news:20070531222302.4950f170.frx@firenze.linux.it...
I am sorry for not being clear enough: I meant to refer to the *thread*
that started from your message, not just to your message.
I now realize that, unfortunately, the rest thread was on the next month
and hence is not linked by the web archives!
I apologize, the rest of the thread starts here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00001.html
Not a problem.
The Final draft of the GPL 3 is now out.
At least serveral of the issues you brought up have been addressed.
For example the part that began " If the work has interactive user
interfaces, each must include a convenient feature that"
is now:
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
work need not make them do so.
A new definition has been added:
> An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Leal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
One other potential issue with this is the "additional terms" section
which a clause that reads:
b. requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
Notices displayed by works containing it; or
This still places some slight restrictions on modification,
but it is limited. This does looks better overall IMHO,
and is probably about as good as the FSF is willing to get,
on this issue.
There is also now a dissussion draft of the GNU AGPL (acoording to the
changes document, although there is no sign of it on the discussion site.
The reference to the "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act" has been removed.
The basic interperation concepts that were desired have been explicitly
stated,
rather than referencing US caselaw.
They did not change anything in the anti-circumvention section,
except for the title of the section.
Reply to: