Re: GPL v3 Draft 3- text and comments
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:42 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
I can't see any judge with a decent grasp of English or the notion of
a "legal notice" or "author attribution" permitting the attachment of
the GNU Manifesto to a work under this clause. Can you give a
concrete example of a problematic situation you see?
I cannot depict a specific scenario off the top of my head, but my alarm
bell rang as soon as I saw the word "preservation" coupled with
undefined (and hence vague) terms as "reasonable legal notice" and
"author attribution".
"Undefined in the license" != "vague". There are lots of English words
the license uses which it does not explicitly define, and yet we seem to
manage to understand it pretty well. An author attribution is text which
tells you the name of an author. A reasonable legal notice is any notice
of relevance to and on the topic of the legal situation surrounding the
product.
I really can't see any GFDL-like "insert GNU Manifesto here" problems
with this.
Since the clause does not seem to be designed as sufficiently narrow to
avoid posing nasty problems in the future, I assumed the worst case
scenario and concluded that the clause will bite. That was my line of
reasoning.
How would you rephrase it?
BTW, does this section make GPLv3 compatible with the license of
OpenSSL?
I don't know: I didn't check, as it was not my primary concern.
It was a question for the group :-)
This clause is a permission to link;
therefore, as I read it, the GPLv3 copyleft weakens to an "LGPL"-style
copyleft in the case of linking with the Affero GPL. Each bit of code
remains under its own license.
Yes, and I dislike it: it sounds as (and probably actually is...) an
endorsement of the AfferoGPL v2 by the FSF.
Yes, it is. If you never use the Affero GPL, is it really a big deal?
They made a promise ages ago, and now are looking for the least painful
way to keep it. Having a special exception everyone else can ignore is a
far better solution than the previous section-7-based attempt.
P.S.: Please do not reply to me, Cc:ing the list, as I didn't asked you
to do so.
Sorry. It wasn't intentional.
Gerv
Reply to: