Re: Final text of GPL v3
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is close to fail the DFSG, but passes. Clause
> > > > 5d of GPLv3 is worse (since it's more restrictive, being extended
> > > > to more cases), and hence it's even closer to fail the DFSG.
> > > There is no qualitative difference between the two clauses. We have
> > > *never* treated quantitative differences between licenses as
> > > relevant to freeness. Would you claim that the GPLv2's "make the
> > > source available for three years" requirement is ok, but a clause
> > > saying "make the source available for six years" is not?
> > I think you are talking about clause 3b of GPLv2, aren't you?
> > Maybe you picked the wrong example, because clause 3b *is* a non-free
> > restriction. Fortunately there's another alternative option,
> > represented by clause 3a, which is DFSG-free, and consequently GPLv2
> > is acceptable.
> No, again you have misread the DFSG. 3b is DFSG free, because the DFSG
> says the GPL v2 is free. Debian currently uses 3a because it is much
> less effort, but that doesn't mean that 3b is non free.
Hmm, that's not a universally held opinion within Debian. I don't know if I
would consider a modified GPL that only offered the 3b option to be free; I
suspect I would not. So even though GPL itself is free, that doesn't mean
that any element of the GPL taken alone is also free.
And it wasn't my point to try to claim that 3b was free, my point was about
whether quantitative differences should impact our decisions about the
freeness of two otherwise identical licenses. Apparently I should have
picked a better example.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.