Re: Final text of GPL v3 (new interactive interfaces)
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> wrote: [...]
> The scenario I am mainly worried about is the following.
> The work A is published under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
> A has *no* interactive interfaces, because it's not an interactive work.
> I receive work A and want to create a modified work based on A.
> The modified work is named B and has one, newly implemented, interactive
> interface. Hence, work B is an interactive work.
> I want to distribute work B in source form.
> In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3.
> Work B is the "work based on the Program" referred to in the first
> sentence of Section 5:
> | You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
> | produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
> | terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
> | conditions:
> On the other hand, work A is the "Program".
> Is that right? I cannot see any other reasonable interpretation.
Now I'm unsure. Earlier, the Program was defined as "any copyrightable
work licensed under this License". Because the GPL is a copyleft, isn't
the modified Program also the Program? Is 5d's work the original or
modified work? Is 5d's Program the original or the modified Program?
I thought it was 'the work' [= work B] as mentioned in the first part of
5d. It seems a bit fiddly for the work to change in 5 to mean the
modified work but the Program never to change.
> > > > 7. Additional Terms.
> > > [...]
> > I share these reservations. A problem to watch for in GPLv3 packages.
> Hooray! Another check-on-case-by-case-basis license! :-(
To be fair, some people have tried to use GPLv2's requirements about
notices to include invariant sections. I think this will be less common
and less troublesome than many licences.
> Thanks for replying to my comments.
No worries. Thanks for the thorough analysis, flagging many potential
problems, even if I'm not convinced that there any DFSG-busters.
I'm very demotivated by the GPLv3 and the way it has been produced (not
sure which of this and FDL 1.2 was worse for me, to be frank) and it's
rather inescapable, so I probably wouldn't have looked so closely at it
without this thread you started.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct