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

Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available




"Lionel Elie Mamane" <lmamane@debian.org> wrote in message 20060806035122.GB2897@capsaicin.mamane.lu">news:20060806035122.GB2897@capsaicin.mamane.lu...
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:16:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
"Nathanael Nerode" <neroden@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:20060728021949.GA4694@doctormoo.dyndns.org...

There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft
of the GPL v.3.

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.

That interpretation would be *very* distasteful to me. My
interpretation is that it refers to the version of the GPL that was
current at time the text was written, or possibly also all past
versions. If version 10 of the GNU GPL discriminates against employees
of ${COMPANY}, it is non-DFSG free. If your interpretation were
common, I would propose an amendment to clarify it.


Considering that it is ammendable, it should always be reasonable to interpret it now, rather than at the time of writting.
That is because it is always possible to be correct as it would be read now.

Now GPL v3 being non-free would be a disaster, and I really think we would need to modify the DFSG to make it free, because forking the entire GNU project is too difficult. (Although it is interesting that some parts of the GNU project are dead upsteam, making Debian the de facto maintainer of those packages.)



Reply to: