On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with > > respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on > > the matter. > > > "Border-line" does not mean that it *fails* the DFSG, but that it's > > *very close* to fail. > > "Border-line" implies that it could go either direction. This is not > true. Regardless of how you feel about this clause, the GPLv2 is > recognized as a free license under the DFSG. OK, maybe I used misleading words (remember that IANAENS, I Am Not An English Native Speaker). What I mean is that, IMHO, clause 2c is a flaw of GPLv2. Not a flaw which is bad enough to make the license fail to meet the DFSG, but close to do so. In this sense, it's "border-line": it could be or not be enough to make the license non-free. Upon careful analysis, it turns out to be close to the DFSG-freeness boundary, but fortunately on the free side. This is my own view on clause 2c. IANADD, TINASOTODP (This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position). Because of this opinion I hold on GPLv2#2c, I see GPLv3#5d as something worse. It's the same requirement extended from interfaces that "read commands interactively" to every kind of "interactive user interface". Extending a flaw is making things worse. > > > Extending this clause from interfaces that "read commands > > interactively" to every kind of "interactive user interface" is > > really making things worse, which is exactly what I commented. > > It is not a qualitative change. I see no grounds for saying that it's > worse than the existing clause. It *is* worse: not qualitatively worse, but quantitatively worse. Maybe it's not worse enough to become non-free, but it's worse anyway. > > > Compare with the obnoxious advertising clause of the 4-clause BSD > > license: it's an inconvenience close to fail the DFSG, IMO. But we > > accept it as DFSG-free. However, I would *not* be happy to see a > > license that *extends* this restriction to a wider scenario. > > The 4-clause BSD is also not "close to failing the DFSG". IMHO, it is. IANADD, TINASOTODP. [...] > to call something "close to non-free" > is just an expression of your dislike for it, masquerading as an > objective judgement. Well, it seems that even DFSG-freeness judgements are not always so objective, or otherwise we would not be discussing about them all the time on this list... [...] > > 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. This is my opinion, but also the opinion of other debian-legal regulars. [...] > I challenge you to offer a reasonable bright line test by which we > would say the GPLv2 clause is free and the GPLv3 clause is non-free. > I believe you will fail. Quite possibly I will fail. That's why I pointed out clause 5d as a flaw, *without* saying that I believed it was definitely non-free. I said that it's "possibly a DFSG-freeness issue" and waited for other comments (which I am already getting). > > > Whether it fails or passes is to be decided: I simply said > > "possibly", you say it's OK. Let's see what others think... > > Yes, let's. Preferably others who are actually Debian developers, > instead of non-DDs who discourage developer participation on > debian-legal through the numerical superiority of their posts > advancing outlandish interpretations of the DFSG that are untempered > by such trifles as reality. Woaah! Feeling appreciated is always gratifying! [...] > > Mmmmh, if one cannot redistribute a work (because of patents or > > whatever), I think it fails DFSG#1... > > > DFSG#1 says "The license of a Debian component may not restrict > > DFSG#[...]", > > so maybe one can argue that the copyright license cannot be blamed > > for patent restrictions. > > But DFSG#1 does not talk about "copyright license", merely about > > "license". > > It talks about the license *of a Debian component*. A patent license > is not a license of a Debian component, it's a license to third-party > "intellectual property". Sometimes it's not third-party, but belongs to the same entity which holds copyright on the work. Anyway, I think I get what you mean: you see the software patent one as an "external problem", not to be blamed to the work itself, and hence not affecting the freeness of the work. Just like a stupid law that forbids the distribution of programs that lack a GUI, or something similarly absurd... According to this view, let's rephrase my comments on patent-related clauses and just say "possibly an insufficient protection from patent lawsuits". With the understanding that the GPLv2 is even less protecting against those issues. Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP, IANAENS. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpxYLVI16XrZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature