Re: GPL v3 Draft
> As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need
> not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is
> normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major
> essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to
> produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it,
> and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves
> only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler
> or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface,
> the implementation of which requires no patent license not already
> generally available for software under this License.
Where did the "unless that component itself accompanies the executable"
go? Is it somewhere else?
> Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided it
> does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies.
> Propagation which does enable them to do so is permitted, as
> "distribution", under the conditions of sections 4-6 below.
I think this really needs some "intended" inserted somewhere.
(Or is there some other way to avoid someone intercepting my transfer
from one to the other computer by ftp over a LAN cable
with a large antenna and then either threathening to sue me or
additionally get the source?)
> 5. Distributing Modified Source Versions.
> 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
> the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may
> redistribute the modified work under these conditions, and how to
> view a copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of
> other terms in accord with section 7. If the interface presents a
> list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a command to
> display this information must be prominent in the list.
> Otherwise, the modified work must display this information at
> startup--except in the case that the Program has such
> interactive modes and does not display this information at
Uh, this got even longer. Though I think my want to get it removed
at all is just personal taste, I think.
> b) Distribute the Object Code in a physical product (including a
> physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid
> for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts
> or customer support for that product model, to give any third party,
> for a price no more than ten times your cost of physically performing
> source distribution, a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the
> software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable
> physical medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
"valid for at least three years and valid for as long".
Can someone more capable of the English language help me here:
Is that a min or a max of those two?
> 7. License Compatibility.
> Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited kinds of
> additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:
> d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
> allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
> Source Code.
I really miss an option to require licensors not to make my programs
unfree by using this option d)
> 11. Licensing of Patents.
> When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to
> the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work,
> permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all
> activities allowed or contemplated by this License, such as
> installing, running and distributing versions of the work, and using
> their output. This patent license is nonexclusive, royalty-free and
> worldwide, and covers all patent claims you control or have the right
> to sublicense, at the time you distribute the covered work or in the
> future, that would be infringed or violated by the covered work or any
> reasonably contemplated use of the covered work.
This is really a bit harsh. Especially that automatism. Why not disallow
them to distribute unless they give such a license? This could lead
to irrational fears. (with the result of corporate laywers forbidding
the poor ingeneers to use it)
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.