"Nathanael Nerode" <email@example.com> 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
> 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.
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
> session; or
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
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact