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:
pgpgwmOyxsbaL.pgp
Description: PGP signature