Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: licens...@gnu.org Like in the Artistic case, the purpose of this report is not to turn a great share of the main component into non-free. I am only presenting a bug.
Just to make sure, I do not speak in the name of the Debian project.
Unlike Artistic, GPLv3 is not necessarily part of DFSG #10 because last
update is from 2004. Otherwise, it is still cataloged as "example", not
"override".
GPLv3 breaks DFSG #5 (no discrimination against persons or groups).
Section 8 states:
If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the
same material under section 10.
Section 10 says:
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license
Consider an example. If Alice's rights are terminated, Bob's section 10
effectively turns into:
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license except Alice
or (more problematic to Bob):
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license
You may not convey to Alice.
This virtually means a license split: some software under
GPLv3-deny-Alice and the rest under GPLv3. Now Bob has developed some
software under GPLv3. What does happen if he combines both licenses?
Assuming he knows about the restriction, he may rightfully think that
GPLv3-deny-Alice imposes a further restriction, thus he may remove it
and convey under GPLv3. However, this would be a "poor wording" trick.
It looks like the intended combination is GPLv3-deny-Alice until Alice
gets a permanent reinstatement, which may not happen. Bob's ability to
effectively distribute software to Alice is prevented.
But Alice is not the only one affected. If she starts conveying covered
works in a seemingly GPLv3 compliant way, she does not really have that
right, and her recipients do not automatically receive a license.
As I said, DFSG #5 becomes broken. GPLv3 discriminates against users
with their rights terminated from one related copyright holder;
reinstatement may be not possible. GPLv3 is not DFSG compliant.
Furthermore, it is not even a free license because it breaks freedoms 2
and 3, since distributing copies to these users is restricted.
Note that GPLv2 does not have this problem because section 4 says
nothing about reinstatements, despite what I read in other web sites.
Curing a GPLv2 violation does not restore rights, but getting a new
license under section 6 and remaining in compliance does restore.
Regarding significance, I guess the termination clause is meant to
discourage repeated infringements. However, it could be misused;
reinstatement might be unreasonable or impossible. One example:
1. Coder Inc. develops SuperFoo under GPLv3.
2. Derivative Fdn. creates HyperFoo based on SuperFoo.
3. HyperFoo becomes very popular.
4. A developer from Derivative accepts a binary-only plug-in from a
contributor.
5. Coder notifies of the violation, which is cured.
6. Another developer from Derivative accepts a binary-only plug-in,
realizes his mistake and reverts.
7. Coder explicitly and finally terminates Derivative's license.
8. Coder demands an insane amount of money for reinstatement.
Of course, you may think that Coder's behavior is acceptable, since
violations are Derivative's responsibility. You may judge that DFSG #5
and freedoms 2 and 3 are not broken, since GPLv3 does not discriminate
because of reasons other than license violation, but GPLv2 and other
licenses do not make such discrimination.
If Debian agrees with this procedure, DFSG #5 should be replaced with:
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons that have not violated the license.
Nevertheless, I believe DFSG #5 should not be modified. I would change
GPLv3 to not require reinstatements or to adopt limited periods of
disqualification depending on damages and reiteration. "Life sentence"
clauses are bad, but that is just an opinion.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
