On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:55:13 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > 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 haven't read it yet (but it was already on my radar...). Nonetheless I cannot wait to comment on your message, so let's get started! > > I think that's pretty much an admission of how this licence is even > less hacker-friendly than GPLv2. It may be seen that way, sure. An overly long and complicated license (about twice as long as GPLv2, which is already fairly long!) ... > > 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. ... and despite its length, it does not even implement an actually working copyleft mechanism. :-( > 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. Taking into account that the FSF approves of CC-by-v2.0 and CC-by-sa-v2.0 as "free licenses" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html), that speaking out against Creative Commons does not seem to be too convinced... [...] > That's really the summary that can be used about the whole GPLv3 saga: > good but disappointing. 100 % agreement here. GPLv3 only just meets the DFSG, but has a broken copyleft and annoying clauses. -- 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:
pgpsdO7CpgqfG.pgp
Description: PGP signature