Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
"Nathanael Nerode" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
[🔎] 20060728021949.GA4694@doctormoo.dyndns.org">news:[🔎] 20060728021949.GA4694@doctormoo.dyndns.org...
Just a heads-up.
There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the
(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
any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring them up here as
we can try to hash out whether they really are.
Note that the fact that that DFSG 10 may make GPLv3 free regardless of other
violations, because "GPL" is used without version information.
On to the other areas. I will be pointing out any potential problems I
notice, even if i do not belive them to actually be a problem.
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit
such that (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 specific operating system (if any) on
which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object
code, 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 for
which an implementation is available to the public in source code
If I understand this, the "system library" exception will only applyto
libraries required to use that
part of the system (windows manager ,kernel, compiler, etc.) or can apply to
libraries ditributed with those
components that implements a "highly used or standard" API if an
implentation of this API exists with viewable source.
(This would allow linking to without distibuting something like a Micosoft
gettext library, if that library was included with the compiler.)
I point this out, not because of freeness issues, (although there might be
some), but only because the orignal took
a fair ammount of effort to understand.
> The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or
authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified
versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of
use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the
same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD
player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified
versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online
service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the
work normally implies the user already has the key and can read and
copy it, as in privacy applications where users generate their own
keys. However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object
code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does
not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source.
This is the Tivo clause. I'm not sure if there is any freeness issues to it,
but it is contoversial.
This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions
of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions,
if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of
your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using,
selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in
compliance with this License.
This indicates that the GPL now does cover running the work,
but only in this one case does it dissallow use.
It also only covers use of a modified version.
This could be possible under the "not a contract" theory,
as copyright law does not private modifications without permission.
3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.
Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is
given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works
the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
This is a another DRM related clause. This should be ok,
as it only dissallows distribution of the source or object code
in a way that would prevent the users from excersizing their rights.
This does not prevent distributing on some form of media with manditory
DRM, as long as a form without DRM is distributed alongside it,
as both would be covered under the same act of conveying, and
the second version allows the users the rights they need.
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
convey the modified work under this License, and how to view a
copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of
other terms in accord with section 7. Specifically, 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. However, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your modified
work need not make them comply.
I cannot belive they managed to make that clause even worse.
I really wish they would drop it.
4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they
cover is a work intended to interact with users through a
computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of
the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network
This might be considered a freeness problem it would only cover works
that are using this "option".
Additional requirements are allowed only as stated in subsection 7b.
If the Program as you received it purports to impose any other
additional requirement, you may remove that requirement.
You may not propagate or modify the Program except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify the Program is void. If you violate this License, any
copyright holder may put you on notice by notifying you of the
violation, by any reasonable means, provided 60 days have not elapsed
since the last violation. Having put you on notice, the copyright
holder may then terminate your license at any time. However, parties
who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will
not have their licenses terminated so long as they remain in full
I still am not understanding the point of this sixty day statute of
Overall it looks like there are fairly few problematic clauses in this