Re: GPL v3 Draft
Page 2 exhibit managed to escape. Bringing it back.
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
> Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
> "On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and
> this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana
> But, that being said, the license also makes it difficult for people
> to use the GPL to invoke DRM protections, "and we want to make sure
> that if they are going to invoke DRM restrictions that they can't use
> our license to do that," he said.
> Also, on the issue of derivative works, Fontana said the draft license
> has not changed the language that defines what a derivative work is,
> "and I don't think that we can."
> But Lawrence Rosen, a partner with Rosenlaw & Einschlag, said people
> want to know whether, if they linked two pieces of work together, this
> creates a derivative work. "People do not know if that is the case
> here, and the license is not entirely clear about the obligation to
> release source code, and that uncertainty hurts potential adoption of
> the GPL," he said.
Rosen said he is still trying to figure out what the wording of the
license actually means. "You have to make sure that all the words fit
together, and right now, I'm nor sure they actually do, so it's useful
to have all these committees looking at it," he said.
Rosen also wants to know how and why this license differs from others,
and is looking forward to hearing from the FSF about that. He unsure
that all the language in the license has legal effect and what the
drafters are hoping the legal effect of the license will be.
Mike Milinkovich, the executive director of the Eclipse Foundation,
stressed that code licensed under the EPL (Eclipse Public License)
remain EPL code under any condition.