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

Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available

"Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message [🔎] 20060802171408.5ac50dc5.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:[🔎] 20060802171408.5ac50dc5.frx@firenze.linux.it...

  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.

:::: Bad: no permission to use the work for bad guys?

This is a so-called patent retaliation clause.  Isn't it a bit
overreaching?  It's true that it's triggered only by patent suits that
are related to the Program and that are intended to effectively restrict
other parties' freedoms to use, copy or convey their own works based on
the Program...

But on the other hand, copyright does not cover use, so how can a
copyright holder (assuming he/she does not hold any patent) terminate
the right to *use* the work for a licensee?  Is this clause intended to
take away from bad guys (who sue for patent infringement) a right that
they *would* have if they didn't accept the license??

===> possibly a DFSG issue?

This is explictly limited to modified versions. Apparently the FSF feels
that they can prevent the legal use of a modified version by revoking the
rights to make derivitives retroactively. I assume the theory is it
is illegal to run a program that was made in violation of copyright laws.

Sounds like a weak theory to me.

  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.

:::: Seems good: as long as this allows parallel conveying on
DRM-encumbered *and* unencumbered channels

Conveying through DRM-encumbered media or channels seems to be allowed
as long as final recipients are not denied the freedoms granted by the
license.  For instance, conveying through a DRM-*un*encumbered media or
channel in parallel to the DRM-encumbered one, seems to be considered
enough to re-enable the full exercise of the legal rights granted by the
license.  Does this clause permit this scenario?  If this is the case,
then the clause seems to be OK.

The question  is whether both are considered part of one act of conveying.
If so then the un-encumbered one gives the users the ability to excercise their rights
under the licence.

I would like to see this *permission to add restrictions* entirely
dropped from GPLv3.

Well I'm not sure, for example these two "restrictions" seem very reasonable
as it would be stupid for the GPL to be label incompatible with annother licence
for either of these two reasons:

    1) terms that require that the origin of the material they cover
       not be misrepresented, or that modified versions of that
       material be marked in specific reasonable ways as different
       from the original version; or

    2) warranty or liability disclaimers that differ from the
       disclaimers in this License; or

I'm doubtful that it is really killing copyleft. If the purpose of
copyleft is to keep software FSF-free then it does it very well.

  [13.[8] Geographical Limitations.

:::: Bad: really problematic and unused

This section seems basically the same as section 8 of GPLv2 (and as
section 13 of GPLv3draft1).  It's problematic, even though I cannot
remember any case where it was exercised.  I would like to see this
section dropped, since I think a geografically restricted work would
discriminate against some group(s) of people, and thus wouldn't be
really free.

===> this option would fail DFSG#5, when exercised

The brakcets around that section indicates that they intend to drop it, unless
somebody can convince them otherwise. It is there only to show what form it
would take if it were kept.

  [15.[10] Requesting Exceptions.

:::: Improvable: OK, but off-topic

Basically the same as section 10 of GPLv2 (and as section 15 of
GPLv3draft1).  It seems OK to me, but it sounds off-topic in the license
text...  I would move it outside the TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

The brakcets around that section indicates that they intend to drop it, unless
somebody can convince them otherwise. It is there only to show what form it
would take if it were kept.

Reply to: