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

Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments

Francesco Poli wrote:

Not-quite-DFSG-free == non-free, even though close to the freeness
boundary == proprietary, even though close to the freeness boundary

By definition, whatever is not free, is proprietary.

I was using proprietary in what I thought was its fairly common meaning, i.e. closed source, controlled by only one company.

I have no intention of getting into a fight about whether the Affero additional restriction is acceptable or free or whatever. The FSF thinks it's free; other people disagree. Their reasons are credible. I don't like it.

But my point is that you are acting as if this exception turns all GPLed code into LGPLed code - i.e. Microsoft can come along and link it into Windows, or whatever. But that's obviously not true.

The only non-GPLed code your GPLed code can be linked with is code that also follows the GPL exactly _except_ that it has a single additional restriction on modification to a small part of it. This may not be a good thing, but it's not even on the same planet as some of the scenarios the phrase "being able to link with proprietary code" could cover.

And considering the small amount of code actually covered by the Affero GPL (and that there's very little evidence that version 2 of the Affero GPL will cause it to suddenly surge in popularity) then it's also very unlikely that code you write will end up in this situation.

Lastly, the FSF is keeping their promises. If you can think of a better way for them to do so (and this way is already a whole load better than their last attempt), then suggest it.

So I'd suggest you concentrate your efforts on the other points you made in your analysis, which were good and reasonable. In order to facilitate this, I'm not going to contribute further to this discussion, because its very continuance is counter-productive to its point.

The problem is that (if this clause is not dropped) GPLv3'd code will
be linkable to non-free-restriction-encumbered code.
That's not in the spirit of the GNU GPL v2.

True. And Debian can easily refuse to distribute applications so linked.


Reply to: