Le jeudi 06 septembre 2007 à 22:49 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:02:31 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I think the authors have completely misunderstood the purpose of
> > section 7. This section doesn't allow to add further restrictions, but
> > to add further *permissions*. Like, for example, permitting to link
> > the program with a library that requires preservation of reasonable
> > legal notices.
>
> I don't agree: it is my understanding that GPLv3 section 7 does indeed
> allow adding (a limited set of) restrictions.
> Section 7 is a permission to add some restrictions.
> That is the main reason I dislike it: it weakens copyleft.
I think this is plain wrong. The purpose of this section is not to
weaken copyleft, but to allow linking software with some other software
with a moderately GPL-incompatible license.
“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of
this License by making exceptions from one or more of its
conditions.
These are exceptions to the existing GPL terms, not new terms.
> The permission to add permissions has always been present in the GPL (at
> least from version 2): you can always add permissions to material you
> hold copyright for.
No. With GPL v3, you can add *or remove* these permissions at will, for
whatever work.
> My question was whether the restriction added by PySoy authors is
> compatible with GPLv3 section 7.
The PySoy authors' restriction cannot be added under GPLv3 section 7
(despite their claims), therefore PySoy cannot be considered licensed
under the GPL. This restriction being compatible with section 7 would be
interesting for using the library in GPLv3 software, but otherwise this
is irrelevant.
The real question is whether this work is DFSG-free, and if the logo
cannot be changed, the answer is clearly "no". The upstream authors
should be encouraged to remove that restriction and use a trademark
license like Mozilla's instead, so that we could at least iceweasel-ify
it.
> If instead the restriction is compatible with GPLv3 section 7, well,
> then we have a concrete example of a non-free work released under the
> GNU GPL v3 (no surprise, I was expecting such a case sooner or later),
> since I do not think that such a restriction should be considered as a
> DFSG-free one...
This work is *not* released under the GPLv3, and you cannot add such a
restriction to an existing work released under the GPLv3.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=