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

New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available

Just a heads-up.


There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the GPL v.3.
(They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.)
And there's a new draft of the LGPL.  (I haven't looked carefully at it.)

You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but if there are 
any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring them up here as well so 
we can try to hash out whether they really are.

Clause 7(b).4 is much, much improved.  If used, it might still be a freeness issue
because of the "same network session" requirement.  If "same network session" means
"same session at the computer" if should be fine and free.  If it means "same TCP/IP
connection"... I'm not sure.  Anyone else have thoughts?

The "DRM" clause (3) seems to be fixed, and the new version actually looks like a good
model clause to me.  I'm not 100% sure about the "encryption keys" 
business in clause 1, though it looks pretty good; the new version is certainly an 
improvement over the first draft, but perhaps people can think of some reasonable 
use case which this clearly prohibits (I can't).

It's also unclear to me what the status of dual-licensing is in the new draft:
I believe it's meant to be dealt with as "additional permissions", but I'm not sure
whether that actually works.  (Some of those permissions might be conditional on not
exercising some of the GPL freedoms, and I don't know how that would work.)
The draft doesn't give any direct concessions to the existence of dual-licensing, 
but then neither did any previous version of the GPL....

There are so many wording changes that something new might have popped up, but I didn't
spot anything.  :-)

Oh -- note if you look at the draft that the clauses in brackets (13 and 15) are 
scheduled for removal; at least I assume they are since that's what it meant during
the first draft.  This confused me on the first draft; I dunno why they're in
there at all.

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

This space intentionally left blank.

Reply to: