GPLv3 Drafting Process

["Benj. Mako Hill" <mako@debian.org>]

<quote who="MJ Ray" date="Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:57:21AM +0000">
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako@debian.org>
> > <quote who=3D\"Glenn Maynard\" date=3D\"Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM -0500\">
> > > The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness.  A
> > > non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to
> > > use it.
> > 
> > I never suggested that this is the case. I suggested that we should
> > perhaps think a bit harder before we declare software (or some subset
> > of software) under the most popular free software license in existance
> > non-free than we do when we're only talking about some license that
> > almost nobody uses.
> 
> I don't think one can honestly call GPLv3 "the most popular free software
> licence in existance" because it's not in existance yet

I was calling the GPL the most popular free software license in
existence. This is quite clearly case with over 3/4 of all free
software under the license.

> The current draft and BROKEN drafting process are getting a lot of
> criticism.

The draft is certainly getting critism. Nobody thought that *any* new
version of the GPL would be easy. That's why there is a public
discussion process in the first place.

Can you point me to other criticism of the process?

> (The process should be changed to be
>  * open/accessible to all, but especially software creators

In what ways is it not open to all? *Anyone* can make comments on the
draft.

There are sets of committees whose job it is to collect, summarize,
comment on and present these comments to the FSF with recommendations
of how to proceed. When these people want to track comments made or or
make them theirselves, they use the publicly available mechanisms to
do so. AFAIK, the Debian project is more fully represented on these
committees than any single other project, company, or organization
other than the FSF.

>  * transparent and public with full audit trails

The conference was public. Minutes from the meetings of at least some
of the committees are public. The results of all committee works are
public. The comments are all public. What do you want?

>  * more international

The FSF/SFLC is, AFAIK, planning a set of follow-up conferences on the
GPL around the world including at least one in Europe and more in
South America and the East Asia. They have spoken openly about
this.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@debian.org
http://mako.cc/