Re: GPL v3 Draft
El lunes, 16 de enero de 2006 a las 09:07:42 -0800, Don Armstrong escribía:
> The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form
> means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile,
Good, now even if someone codes a piece of firmware directly in machine
code, they cannot say that "the preferred form for modification is this
raw listing of 73894 hex codes". There's probably some comments and some
documentation that was used to understand the program while it was being
written, and that's now being considered part of the complete source code
too...
> Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided it
> does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies.
Given up on the "ASP loophole" yet? :-)
> this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any
> other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute
> covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of
This is a restriction on running the program disguised as a restriction on
distribution...
> c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate
> copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for
No longer optional?
> startup--except in the case that the Program has such
> interactive modes and does not display this information at
> startup.
But the message on startup is still optional. I'm not sure it's exactly
what they mean...
> d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it
> from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy
> the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place.
> You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source
> along with the Object Code.
It's nice that they include this because it's theoretically not permitted
in GPLv2, and that's how Debian (and everyone else) distributes its stuff :)
> Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited kinds of
> additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:
I can see now the coming 15 years of debian-legal flamewars, since some of
these allowed additional requirements are non-DFSG-free (some forms of
patent retaliation and of mandatory link to download the source code, for
example). So some GPLv3-ed works will be non-DFSG-free because they contain
components which are non-DFSG-free.
And, of course, people won't say "d-l says that work X under the GPLv3
which contains component Y under the license Z is non-free", but "d-l says
that the GPLv3 is non-free".
Such is life in d-l.
> When others modify the work, if they modify your parts of it, they may
> release such parts of their versions under this License without additional
> permissions, by including notice to that effect, or by deleting the notice
> that gives specific permissions in addition to this License. Then any
> broader permissions granted by your terms which are not granted by this
> License will not apply to their modifications, or to the modified versions
> of your parts resulting from their modifications. However, the specific
> requirements of your terms will still apply to whatever was derived from
> your added parts.
This paragraph is using "permissions" and "requirements" interchangeably,
which is confusing (and incorrect).
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
Reply to: