On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > 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. So, IIUC, you feel that this interpretation is too far fetched, and the only interpretation that could hold up in court is the intended one: forbidding use of DMCA/EUCD/... to take away freedoms granted by the license. And this clause, interpreted as intended, is a DFSG-free restriction. Mmmh, maybe you are right. Maybe my concerns about this clause are bit exaggerated... > > > > 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? I am not sure, but anyway, who can really be sure about anything?!? > 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. The scenario I am mainly worried about is the following. The work A is published under the terms of the GNU GPL v3. A has *no* interactive interfaces, because it's not an interactive work. I receive work A and want to create a modified work based on A. The modified work is named B and has one, newly implemented, interactive interface. Hence, work B is an interactive work. I want to distribute work B in source form. In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3. Work B is the "work based on the Program" referred to in the first sentence of Section 5: | You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to | produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the | terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these | conditions: On the other hand, work A is the "Program". Is that right? I cannot see any other reasonable interpretation. Hence, I read clause 5d as: | d) If the work [= work B] has interactive user interfaces [yes, it | has one], each must display Appropriate Legal Notices [I must | implement the feature in the newly created interactive interface]; | however, if the Program [= work A] has interactive interfaces [no, | it has none] that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work | need not make them do so [this does not apply, since the condition is | false]. This means that I'm compelled to implement the feature in the newly created interactive interface, even if I don't want to. > > > > 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. Hooray! Another check-on-case-by-case-basis license! :-( > > > > 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. Yes, I should have written "greatly weakens", I was dramatizing a bit too much... > 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? I don't count on it to happen... :-( The FSF seems to not listen to Free Software supporters anymore. Or, at least, it seems to listen to the wrong ones... > 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. Thanks for replying to my comments. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpJdI3df43E2.pgp
Description: PGP signature