Re: GPL 3 and derivatives
Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work
> or create a derivative work to read and understand his countries
> copyright laws?
The FSF has recently published A Quick Guide to GPLv3
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
I think that's pretty much an admission of how this licence is even less
hacker-friendly than GPLv2.
Looking at the explanation: neutralising EUCD/DMCA-type laws is good, but
using GPLv3 comes with the cost of endorsing things like the Affero GPL.
After all the times RMS has spoken out against Creative Commons because
endorsing CC-SA also endorses CC-NC a little, it's really disappointing
to see FSF/GNU create their own similar brand confusion. After the
number of times various FSF people have spoken out against confusing
copyrights, trademarks, patents and so on, it's disappointing that
FSF/GNU has produced a combined copyright-and-patent licence.
That's really the summary that can be used about the whole GPLv3 saga:
good but disappointing.
Best wishes,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: