Re: Final text of GPL v3
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> DFSG#1.
It could, but I don't think this is one we can test in many cases.
If GPLv3 does turn out to have bizarre interactions with Computer Misuse
law, then either FSF will amend (I hope) or GPLv3 will surely be rejected
en masse. Until then, I'm willing to assume it does what was intended
and not hold it as a problem following the DFSG.
> > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. [...]
> > 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.
> [...]
> What is more awkward
> is that it seems that when a non-interactive work is modified so that it
> becomes an interactive work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement
> these features in *any* newly created interactive interface.
Are you sure? If the work has no interactive user interfaces, neither
of the above 'if' parts seem true already, so adding the first such
interface lets its author make both parts true simultaneously by adding an
interface which does not display the notices, if they so wish.
> > 7. Additional Terms.
> [...]
> Especially, clause 7b is a permission to add a possibly non-free
> requirement. Actually: what exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"?
> What exactly is an "author attribution"? These terms are not defined
> anywhere in the license. [...]
I share these reservations. A problem to watch for in GPLv3 packages.
> > 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
> [...]
> Being compatible with an unreleased (and probably non-free) license
> destroys the copyleft mechanism of the GPLv3.
Not destruction, but it means GPLv3 is only a weak copyleft IMO. It is
amazing that GPLv3 may give a minor exit route from free software to
adware. The only way to avoid it is for FSF to never release GAGPL, but
how likely is FSF to change course now? They've marginalised several
good web app authors from the consultations by putting it in a bad
Web-2.Null interface, so I'm fearful it's a done deal.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: