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

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue



On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:35:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

[...]
> The *perceived* problem with the GPL is that the FSF has forbidden 
> modified versions to mention the name GPL, the FSF, or carry Richard's
> pre-ramble (sic :-).

The grant of permissions is awkwardly given in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

There's a name-change requirement, which is acceptable from a DFSG point
of view.
There are some consistency requirements for the instructions-for-use: I
didn't think hard to check whether they meet the DFSG.
There's a requirement to *not* mention GNU in those instructions, which
does *not* look DFSG-free: I cannot mention GNU, not even in a
descriptive way and/or clarifying that I claim no endorsement by or
affiliation with the GNU Project!
Moreover, you _must_ purge the preamble: there's no permission to modify
it, in any way; there's not even the permission to keep it bundled with
your license derived from the GPL!  This means that the GPL preamble
does *not* comply with the DFSG.

> As far as the names go, that's trademark not 
> copyright,

The requirement to change the name of the derived license is fine, as I
stated.
On the other hand, the requirement to not mention GNU is not a default
trademark restriction!  And I don't think it's DFSG-free.

> and as far as RMS's ramble, to include that would be to 
> mis-represent Richard.

Not necessarily: I could create a modified version of the GPL preamble
that is not misrepresented as the opinion of RMS, but is clearly
presented as *my* own opinion.  Nothing wrong would be going on, in that
case: my preamble would be derived from the GPL preamble (as far as
copyright is concerned), but would be clearly marked as *my* personal
modified version of the GPL preamble and should be therefore regarded as
*my* opinion, not (necessarily) RMS' one.

But the FSF does not permit this scenario.
They use copyright law to forbid it.
It's a non-free restriction.

> If that's not against the Social Contract, it 
> should be.

I disagree.


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpSi7l9YiUyE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: