[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL v3 Draft

<neroden@fastmail.fm> wrote in message [🔎] 200601161441.02738.neroden@fastmail.fm">news:[🔎] 200601161441.02738.neroden@fastmail.fm...

d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
Source Code.
Although this may be a Free requirement -- and I believe it should be
considered Free -- it poses *major* practical problems for Debian.  For
Debian, I see only one real way of satisfying this: packaging a copy of the entire source package into the .deb. Yuck. Anything else requires the user
to have Internet access or a local archive copy, which we can't guarantee.

I think we would need the copyright holders of any software with this
requirement to grant a specified exemption to it for Debian, before we could
allow such a program into Debian.

This is sufficiently burdensome that I have to wonder whether they really
meant to allow it, or whether it's a misdrafting.

This is as intended: A clause to allow compatability with the Allegro GPL.

e) They may impose software patent retaliation, which means permission
for use of your added parts terminates or may be terminated, wholly or
partially, under stated conditions, for users closely related to any
party that has filed a software patent lawsuit (i.e., a lawsuit
alleging that some software infringes a patent). The conditions must
limit retaliation to a subset of these two cases: 1. Lawsuits that lack
the justification of retaliating against other software patent lawsuits
that lack such justification.
My brain can't parse this.  Let me try....

(1) Party A files a lawsuit against Program 1. This lawsuit is the "initial" lawsuit, and is not a retaliation lawsuit. Therefore it falls under clause 1
-- it lacks the justification of retaliating....
(2) Party B, who has nothing to do with Program 1 but is angry about lawsuit 1, files a counter-lawsuit against Party A over program 2. This lawsuit has the justification of retaliating, and therefore does not fall under clause 1. (3) Party C, copyright holder for Program 2, notes that lawsuit 2 falls under
clause 2 (below), and terminates party B's permission to use program 2.

This was intended to be AFAICT:
I made program 1. If Company B sues me over patents they can lose their rights, unless I sued them over patents first.

Reply to: