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

Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available



On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 19:20:01 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:

> 
> "Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message 
> 20060802171408.5ac50dc5.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:20060802171408.5ac50dc5.frx@firenze.linux.it...
[...]
> >:::: Bad: no permission to use the work for bad guys?
[...]
> 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.

Mmmmh, let's say

:::: Bad: no permission to use a modified work for bad guys?

then.
I think the issue is there anyway...

[...]
> >:::: Seems good: as long as this allows parallel conveying on
> >DRM-encumbered *and* unencumbered channels
[...]
> 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 hope this is the right license interpretation.
Note that I've already submitted a comment like this for GPLv3draft1,
but, unfortunately, nobody from FSF explained what is the intended
interpretation...

> 
> 
> >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.

Well, those two restrictions are not harmful, I think.
But IMO the problem is the possibility to add restrictions, in general.

If some restriction is a good one, then, incorporate it in the license
text; otherwise, exclude it.  I object the idea that a license like the
GPLv3, which is claimed to be a copyleft, allows a modified version of
the work to have some restrictions added with respect to the original
version: this is not the way copyleft works!

[...]
> 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.
[...]
> 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.

Yeah, I know: that's why I'm going to speak up and suggest dropping
them!  I'm going to do it so that they know I agree with the decision to
drop them!  ;-)


Thanks for the comments.

-- 
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp5J8t75pHGy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: