Thanks again, Francesco, for a thorough coverage of this latest GPLv3 draft.
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship > (not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more > neutral term than "the Program". Something like "the Work" would > avoid misleading many many people into thinking that the GPL can > only be applied to computer programs. My understanding of FSF's position for many years is that the GPL was designed only for computer programs. They agree that it *can* be applied to non-program works of authorship, and that the result is free software, but I think it's untrue to say it was *designed* to be applicable that way. I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any work of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they expressed this disagreement long before they started promoting other licenses designed for non-program works. If you wish to express this argument, I think you'll need to base it on something other than "the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship". -- \ "The generation of random numbers is too important to be left | `\ to chance." -- Robert R. Coveyou | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
