Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Måns Rullgård]

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You continually miss the point that the GPL is explicitly noted as a
>> free license, which means that anything in the GPL is DFSG free.
>
> No. It means that works licensed under the GPL are considered free
> software under the DFSG. That does *not* mean that "anything in the
> GPL is DFSG free" outside the context of a work licensed under the
> GPL.

It may also be worth noting that GPLv2 *has* to be considered DFSG
free, or there would be little left to call Debian...

-- 
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Armstrong 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>>> Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
>>> for that marketed it in America.
>>
>> And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly
>> broke the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of
>> the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.]
>
> If he was charged with breaking US law on US soil, fair enough. The
> problem, as I see it, was that he was ...
>
> Charged with breaking US law, as a result of actions he did in
> Russia, in order to comply with Russian law.
>
> THAT is the lunacy (and American megalomania) of the Sklyarov
> debacle.

Except that he wasn't. Reading the complaint and indictment would be a
reasonable first start before complaining about American megalomania.
[Otherwise you're indulging in the American pastime of rushing to
judgement.]

In addition to the demonstration, the server from which the ebook
processer was distributed was located within the US, as was the
payment processing stuff. You can't distribute goods in a country and
remain free from being indicted when those goods violate the laws of a
country, the sanity of the country's laws notwithstanding.

Regardless, we're wildly OT for -legal.


Don Armstrong

-- 
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I 
realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked
Him to forgive me.
 -- Emo Philips.

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Armstrong 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
for that marketed it in America.


And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke
the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the
anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.]


If he was charged with breaking US law on US soil, fair enough. The 
problem, as I see it, was that he was ...


Charged with breaking US law, as a result of actions he did in Russia, 
in order to comply with Russian law.


THAT is the lunacy (and American megalomania) of the Sklyarov debacle.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Ben Finney]

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You continually miss the point that the GPL is explicitly noted as a
> free license, which means that anything in the GPL is DFSG free.

No. It means that works licensed under the GPL are considered free
software under the DFSG. That does *not* mean that "anything in the
GPL is DFSG free" outside the context of a work licensed under the
GPL.

It especially doesn't mean that one can construct a new license using
selected clauses from the GPL and have those clauses in a different
context be automatically "DFSG free".

A work is free by the DFSG only by considering the entire context of
the terms placed upon it.

-- 
 \   "He who allows oppression, shares the crime."  -- Erasmus |
  `\ Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Adam Borowski]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> No, again you have misread the DFSG.  3b is DFSG free, because the DFSG
> says the GPL v2 is free.  Debian currently uses 3a because it is much
> less effort, but that doesn't mean that 3b is non free.

Bzzt, wrong.  (a or b) being true doesn't imply that (a and b).  It means
only that at least one of them is ok, not necessarily both.

GPL-2 says "provided that you also do one of the following".  "one of", not
"all of".

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember, but 
> it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the extent that 
> a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".

It's not retroactive. Right now you are free to choose to use
any "GPLv2 or later" software under GPLv3. However any past use
under GPLv2 remains covered under GPLv2 only. You can't say *now*
that your copying *last year* was actually allowed under GPLv3.

> Certainly the feeling is that MS will get caught by this date thingy as 
> a result of their deal with Novell.

The MS/Novell deal is actually grandfathered by this date.
That was the whole point of including that date. That was discussed
when discussion drafts 3 and 4 came out.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
  Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked 
> for that marketed it in America.

And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke
the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the
anticircumvention clause of the DMCA notwithstanding.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead
bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this
subject?"
 -- Robert Fisk

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:09:44 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco 
> Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >
> >> This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> >> discussed.
> >>
> >> There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions
> >implicitly > or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this
> >date, there's a > good  chance the clause would be declared legally
> >invalid.
> >
> >I cannot understand how it could be retroactive.
> >
> >Since the GNU GPL v3 has been released on 29 June 2007, no work has
> >been licensed under its terms prior to 29 June 2007, and hence no
> >provision can be retroactive.
> >A company which entered in a discriminatory agreement prior to 28
> >March 2007, will find out that now is not allowed to distribute
> >GPLv3ed works. What's retroactive about this?
> 
> It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember,
> but  it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the
> extent that  a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".

But "v2 or later" stuff is still available under the terms of v2, so you
can easily escape from undesired restrictions included in v3...
Again, I cannot see how a clause in v3 can be retroactive.  :-?

[...]
> >
> >If a company entered prior to 1989 into a weird agreement forbidding
> >the distribution of source code, would we say that GPL sections that
> >mandate availability of source are retroactive?
>
> In that case, they simply wouldn't be able to distribute GPL software,
> because they wouldn't be able to comply with the licence.

I fail to see any difference with the "28 March 2007" clause, even
without the date limit...

-- 
 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


pgp5knFnjpbfM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with 
the following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they 
have broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL 
doesn't  apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause allowing 
them to  remove the exception ...


This seems to suggest that the terms that you wrote explicitly have 
some special trumping value over the terms in the text of the GPL 
itself. I don't think that's true.


My terms are what I wrote in the COPYING file, not what RMS et al wrote 
in the GPL file. If you don't abide by the contents of COPYING, you 
don't have a licence from me...


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

(The only non-native speakers who I won't cut slack are those who start
preaching their interpretation of English as The One True Meaning over
objections from Englishmen. ;-) )


I presume you mean Americans :-))


Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco 
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:


This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
discussed.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a
good  chance the clause would be declared legally invalid.


I cannot understand how it could be retroactive.

Since the GNU GPL v3 has been released on 29 June 2007, no work has been
licensed under its terms prior to 29 June 2007, and hence no provision
can be retroactive.
A company which entered in a discriminatory agreement prior to 28 March
2007, will find out that now is not allowed to distribute GPLv3ed works.
What's retroactive about this?


It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember, but 
it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the extent that 
a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".


Certainly the feeling is that MS will get caught by this date thingy as 
a result of their deal with Novell.


If a company entered prior to 1989 into a weird agreement forbidding the
distribution of source code, would we say that GPL sections that mandate
availability of source are retroactive?


In that case, they simply wouldn't be able to distribute GPL software, 
because they wouldn't be able to comply with the licence.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
right to rule the world?


No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and other
countries have the right to respond in kind.  Germany, for example, has
claimed universal jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights violations...
of course, the U.S. would never turn over one of it's citizens to such a
court.  Are you sure your government will stand up for you if the U.S. comes
calling?  Is it worth the risk?


Actually, I KNOW they won't :-(



I don't give a monkeys about American criminal law, because I don't live
there. And I have no desire to visit there.


Well, that's all fine and good.  However, if you were to pass yourself off as
a lawyer and give legal advice to Americans from your home country, I would
think it would only be a matter of time before Interpol would come looking
for you with a one-way extradition ticket to the U.S.


And what would you do about the Sklyarov affair? What he did was
criminal under US law, I agree. But under Russian law (the law of his
local jurisdiction) it was MANDATORY!


Ah, but Sklyarov chose to do what he did from American soil, so not really a
great example.  For the record, I protested in front of the Seattle Adobe
building when that all went down, so don't think I'm some sort of corporate
suit wearing dude here.


OOPPSS !!! You're WRONG here.

Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked 
for that marketed it in America.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
It does not even seem to express certainty...


(I am not a professor of English)

The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.


Do you mean in English, or in American?


At one point it expressed both uncertainty and anxiety about the
assertion; "I fear that this assertion might be true". Then it was
used euphemistically to be polite about an assertion one *was* certain
about, but felt was bad for the other party so wanted to soften the
statement. Eventually this euphemistic usage became the main
understanding.


As an English speaker, that is still what it means to me.


Most native English speakers, I think, would read the above as "Though
I regret the fact, I am certain that ". To express
uncertainty, it might be clearer to say "I fear that " or
"I think that ".


You probably mean most native *American* speakers ...

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Ben Finney wrote:

No. This is no more true than to say that, because the GPL, BSD, and
Artistic licenses accompany software in Debian, that those licenses
apply to all of that software.

The only thing you've clearly done is distribute a license text and a
CD. The license text doesn't apply as the terms for the software on
the CD unless and until the copyright holder explicitly declares so in
a grant of license unabiguously on that particular software.


Yes, OK. Extend the thought experiment with a verbal statement from me 
"Here is some software, and the licensing terms which apply." at the 
time of handover. If you think that's repudiatable, we can posit a video 
of the handover, or a digitally signed WAV recording of me saying it.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Ben Finney]

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Here's a thought experiment:
>
> Suppose I wrote some software, and wrote it to a CD, erasing all other
> copies. I then wrote out, in longhand, the text of the GPLv3 on paper,
> and attached it to the CD, and gave it to you. This software would
> clearly be under the GPLv3, and you could redistribute it under those
> terms.

No. This is no more true than to say that, because the GPL, BSD, and
Artistic licenses accompany software in Debian, that those licenses
apply to all of that software.

The only thing you've clearly done is distribute a license text and a
CD. The license text doesn't apply as the terms for the software on
the CD unless and until the copyright holder explicitly declares so in
a grant of license unabiguously on that particular software.

> > At the end of the day, the intentions of the licensor are
> > important, and if those intentions are made explicitly clear, it's
> > a bit difficult for the GPL to contradict them.
>
> But the GPL _is_ the intent of the licensor. You know this, because
> they start with "I license this code under the terms of the
> GPL(v3)..."

In that case, yes, I agree that the copyright holder has explicitly
chosen to renounce any additional restrictions beyond those in the
GPLv3 terms.

-- 
 \  "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a |
  `\   feature."  -- Rich Kulawiec |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the 
following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they have 
broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't 
apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause allowing them to 
remove the exception ...


This seems to suggest that the terms that you wrote explicitly have some 
special trumping value over the terms in the text of the GPL itself. I 
don't think that's true.


Here's a thought experiment:

Suppose I wrote some software, and wrote it to a CD, erasing all other 
copies. I then wrote out, in longhand, the text of the GPLv3 on paper, 
and attached it to the CD, and gave it to you. This software would 
clearly be under the GPLv3, and you could redistribute it under those terms.


Now suppose the same situation, except that I also wrote an extra 
restriction at the bottom: "Also, if you copy and distribute this code, 
you must send me a postcard."


Now, a bit of the text I wrote out in my own handwriting earlier says 
that if I put any extra restrictions on, you can ignore them. I quite 
clearly wrote that you can - it's there, in my own handwriting. So you 
can surely choose to do exactly that.


Why does the same logic not apply when the text of the GPLv3 was not 
typed out or written by you, but just added to your software distribution?


Now, if I specifically disclaim section 7 in my additional text, then 
that's perhaps different. But that would just demonstrate that my intent 
was to confuse :-)


At the end of the day, the intentions of the licensor are important, and 
if those intentions are made explicitly clear, it's a bit difficult for 
the GPL to contradict them.


But the GPL _is_ the intent of the licensor. You know this, because they 
start with "I license this code under the terms of the GPL(v3)..."


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Steve Langasek wrote:

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?


Do you also count on First Amendment protection against charges of libel,
slander, and false advertising?


That's a false analogy. All of the things in your list are done with 
intent to mislead. In the examples we are considering, giving someone 
advice about a situation related to the law is not.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[MJ Ray]

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> > It does not even seem to express certainty...
> 
> (I am not a professor of English)

Clearly.

> The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.
[...]

Rather, it has gained another, less literal, use, which may not be what
Francesco intended to communicate.

I would interpret it as a fear.  Unless there's some survey data or
something to the contrary, I suspect most other rural Englishmen would.
I'm a bit old-fashioned like that, which is why newspeak like "You're
forcing me to ..." looks silly to me.

More generally, please cut non-native speakers some Slack about English
use when it matters like this.  If a German walks into your restaurant
and says "Please can I become a steak?" then that is not justification
for killing and butchering him.  You know damn well what was meant.

(The only non-native speakers who I won't cut slack are those who start
preaching their interpretation of English as The One True Meaning over
objections from Englishmen. ;-) )

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[MJ Ray]

Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL - so I can't be certain - but it would not surprise me in the 
> slightest if the majority of British lawyers were NOT members of the 
> relevant bar association.
> 
> I think bar association members are called barristers - and most lawyers 
> are not barristers but solicitors.

Furthermore, we have a network of Citizens Advice Bureaux who, well,
advise citizens on a wide range of topics, including legal affairs.
Their advisers are trained, but not to be lawyers AFAIK.
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[MJ Ray]

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> > disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."):
> 
> Uh, no, you didn't:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00271.html

It is polite to read the entire thread before claiming omission.  See:
   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00267.html

> I don't know why people make such a fuss out of someone pointing out a
> fact that they themselves acknowledge elsewhere.

Because it's done obnoxiously and repeatedly and without applying the
same standards of disclosure to your own posts.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Sean Kellogg]

On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
> right to rule the world?

No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and other 
countries have the right to respond in kind.  Germany, for example, has 
claimed universal jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights violations...  
of course, the U.S. would never turn over one of it's citizens to such a 
court.  Are you sure your government will stand up for you if the U.S. comes 
calling?  Is it worth the risk?

> I don't give a monkeys about American criminal law, because I don't live
> there. And I have no desire to visit there.

Well, that's all fine and good.  However, if you were to pass yourself off as 
a lawyer and give legal advice to Americans from your home country, I would 
think it would only be a matter of time before Interpol would come looking 
for you with a one-way extradition ticket to the U.S.

> And what would you do about the Sklyarov affair? What he did was
> criminal under US law, I agree. But under Russian law (the law of his
> local jurisdiction) it was MANDATORY!

Ah, but Sklyarov chose to do what he did from American soil, so not really a 
great example.  For the record, I protested in front of the Seattle Adobe 
building when that all went down, so don't think I'm some sort of corporate 
suit wearing dude here.

> You're basically claiming that if American law flatly contradicts the
> law of some other country, then people living in that country have to
> ignore their own law and abide by American law instead !!!

I don't think that's what being said.  But I also don't advise you stand on 
your side of the border shooting bullets into another country and then 
declare "I'm not in your country so I don't have to abide by your laws!"

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:50:18AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > > 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.

> No, again you have misread the DFSG.  3b is DFSG free, because the DFSG
> says the GPL v2 is free.  Debian currently uses 3a because it is much
> less effort, but that doesn't mean that 3b is non free.

Hmm, that's not a universally held opinion within Debian.  I don't know if I
would consider a modified GPL that only offered the 3b option to be free; I
suspect I would not.  So even though GPL itself is free, that doesn't mean
that any element of the GPL taken alone is also free.

And it wasn't my point to try to claim that 3b was free, my point was about
whether quantitative differences should impact our decisions about the
freeness of two otherwise identical licenses.  Apparently I should have
picked a better example.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> discussed.
> 
> There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
> or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a
> good  chance the clause would be declared legally invalid.

I cannot understand how it could be retroactive.

Since the GNU GPL v3 has been released on 29 June 2007, no work has been
licensed under its terms prior to 29 June 2007, and hence no provision
can be retroactive.
A company which entered in a discriminatory agreement prior to 28 March
2007, will find out that now is not allowed to distribute GPLv3ed works.
What's retroactive about this?

If a company entered prior to 1989 into a weird agreement forbidding the
distribution of source code, would we say that GPL sections that mandate
availability of source are retroactive?

See also my comment:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%&id=3227


The usual 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


pgpM8pjHlpn6y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> 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:
> > "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.
> 
> 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).

You continually miss the point that the GPL is explicitly noted as a
free license, which means that anything in the GPL is DFSG free.  That it
doesn't meet your personal standards means that your personal standards
are not in line with the DFSG, not that there is a problem with the
GPL.

> > > 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.

See above.  If you don't believe this to hold for the 4 clause BSD, in
the grand tradition of -legal, I refer you to the archives.

> [...]
> > 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...

Or that some people like to deliberately misinterpret the DFSG in order
to grandstand 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.

No, again you have misread the DFSG.  3b is DFSG free, because the DFSG
says the GPL v2 is free.  Debian currently uses 3a because it is much
less effort, but that doesn't mean that 3b is non free.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:25:57PM -0400, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >   The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> > than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
> > packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
> > Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
> > Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
> > implementation is available to the public in source code form.  A
> > "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
> > (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
> > (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
> > produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

This was different in draft 2, which said:

] The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit
] such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct
] in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel,
] window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any)
] on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object
] code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit
] (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use
] of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to
] implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation
] is available to the public in source code form.

In that, the "subunit" is:
- something joined to a major essential component of the
  operating system, but not an essential part of it
- something that does nothing more than enable use of the work
  with that component, or implements a widely used or standard interface

Draft 1, in turn, said:

] As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not
] include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally
] included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential
] component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on
] which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable or
] an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from
] possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with
] that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely
] used or standard interface, the implementation of which requires no patent
] license not already generally available for software under this License.

which again distinguishes things that get an exception from the actual
major essential components of the operating system.

The rationale for this for draft 1 was:

] The final paragraph of section 1 revises the exception to the source
] code distribution requirement in GPLv2 that we have sometimes called
] the system library exception. This exception has been read to prohibit
] certain distribution arrangements that we consider reasonable and have
] not sought to prevent, such as distribution of gcc linked with a non-free
] C library that is included as part of a larger non-free system. This
] is not to say that such non-free libraries are legitimate; rather,
] preventing free software from linking with these libraries would hurt
] free software more than it would hurt proprietary software.
]
] As revised, the exception has two parts. Part (a) rewords the
] GPLv2 exception for clarity but also removes the words ``unless that
] component itself accompanies the executable.'' By itself, (a) would be
] too permissive, allowing distributors to evade their responsibilities
] under the GPL. We have therefore added part (b) to specify when a
] system library that is an adjunct of a major essential operating system
] component, compiler, or interpreter does not trigger the requirement to
] distribute source code. The more low-level the functionality provided
] by the library, the more likely it is to be qualified for this exception.

-- http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html

Sadly the sentence beginning "We have therefore added part (b)
..." doesn't make any more sense to me than the GPLv3 legalese anyway.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>   GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>  Version 3, 29 June 2007

>   1. Source Code.
> 
>   The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
> packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
> Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
> Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
> implementation is available to the public in source code form.  A
> "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
> (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
> (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
> produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
> 
>   The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
> the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
> work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
> control those activities.  However, it does not include the work's
> System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
> programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
> which are not part of the work.  For example, Corresponding Source
> includes interface definition files associated with source files for
> the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
> linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
> such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
> subprograms and other parts of the work.

>   6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

>   A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
> from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
> included in conveying the object code work.

Suppose you want to use some other software that you don't have rights
to distribute under the GPLv3 in your GPLv3 app. If you distribute your app
in binary form, you need to distribute the "corresponding source". You can
exclude the other component if it's:

(a) it's a System Library

(b) (1) a general-purpose tool or a generally available free program;
(2) used unmodified;
(3) not part of the work;
(4) not specifically designed to be required by the work, such as by
intimate data communication or control flow

The System Library exception only allows you to include interface
definitions to Major Components, afaics, because the exception is
limited to:

(a1) stuff that's included with a Major Component, namely
 (a1x) a major essential component of the operating system (eg
  kernel, window system); or
 (a1y) a compiler for the language used in the work; or
 (a1z) an interpretor for the bytecode used in the work

(a2) stuff that's not part of that Major Component

(a3x) stuff that serves only to enable use of the work with that Major
 Component; or
(a3y) stuff that implements a Standard Interface for which an open 
source
 implementation is publicly available

In particular, both (b3) and (a2) rule out static linking afaics,
because neither exception allows you to exclude the source code to a
module you're actually distributing, and dynamic linking is only allowed
if you exclude the interface definition by (a2) and ignore the library
itself because there isn't any combined/derived work from the library
itself except a transient one created in memory by the end user.

It seems to me, that's taking the view that the only legally justifiable
way of relating copyright licensing with linking is direct incorporation,
either by static linking or inclusion of a header file. That seems a
much more defensible view than the one that, aiui, we'd been using for
GPLv2, which was, aiui: "static linking creates a combined work that's
easily understandable by copyright; dynamic linking achieves the same
end result, so should be treated the same way legally no matter what
the mechanics of the situation are".

In particular, if you have ./foo linked to libbar (where foo.c #includes
bar.h and "bar" is a Major Component), then to be able to distribute
./foo, you need to also distribute foo.c (as the Corresponding Source),
claim an System Library exception for bar.h, and not need to distribute
libbar (or bar.c which you don't even have) because it's _not_ part of
the corresponding source, ie, it's not part of

 "the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
  work) run the object code and to modify the work"

If we take the view that seems to be embodied in the GPLv3 that only
interface definitions count, that in turn means that the only thing you
need in order to link GPL software to a GPL-incompatible library is a GPL
(compatible) header file (and to av

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco 
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

  A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License.  You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.


This date is arbitrary.  It limits the effectiveness of the protection
against "discriminatory" patent licenses.


This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first discussed.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly 
or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a good 
chance the clause would be declared legally invalid.


This clause fails to protect recipients from patent lawsuits, whenever
the related "discriminatory" patent license was granted, or the related
nasty arrangement was in place, prior to 28 March 2007.  In those cases,
the work fails several DFSG, if the patent licensed in a
"discriminatory" manner is actively enforced and infringed by the work.
It's not a Freeness issue, unless and until there are actively enforced
patents infringed by the work and licensed in a "discriminatory" manner
prior to 28 March 2007.

It isn't meant to protect recipients. It's intended to stop 
distributors.


If you are a party to a "discriminatory" agreement, YOU are liable to 
protect downstream, or YOU CAN'T DISTRIBUTE. THAT is the point of that 
clause - if you want to distribute, you have the responsibility to make 
sure downstream can distribute too. You can't negotiate protection for 
yourself (or your customers) and leave everybody else at risk.


Patents are a risk factor for Americans. This clause just says you have 
to share the risk equally, if a distributor negotiates unequal 
protection then it's a violation of v3.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

Um, no.  "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency.  If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however I
damn well want, regardless of what the GPLv3 itself says about whether that
is permissible, because the GPLv3 is not binding on *me the copyright
holder*.

If I go to the effort of writing

   This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
   published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
   prohibition in section 7 of the license on additional restrictions does
   not apply and the permission in section 13 is not granted.

then I have *explicitly addressed* the clause in GPLv3 which purports to
prohibit additional restrictions.  Which statement is going to take
precedence?  At best I've created a lawyer bomb because my intentions are
not clear; at worst I've succeeded in licensing my code in a manner that's
incompatible with the GPLv3.  But that's exactly the same problem that we
had with GPLv2, so what was the point of adding this clause?


And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the 
following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they have 
broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't 
apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause allowing them to 
remove the exception ...


At the end of the day, the intentions of the licensor are important, and 
if those intentions are made explicitly clear, it's a bit difficult for 
the GPL to contradict them.


The main effect of this clause will probably be to discourage people 
from doing this sort of thing - I'm not at all sure that clause would 
actually have teeth in a court of law.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice.  There is,
however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for anybody representing
someone else at trial to be legally trained.  The title "asianajaja" (one of
the Finnish terms referring to a lawyer) is also legally restricted to only
members of the bar association.

IANAL - so I can't be certain - but it would not surprise me in the 
slightest if the majority of British lawyers were NOT members of the 
relevant bar association.


I think bar association members are called barristers - and most lawyers 
are not barristers but solicitors.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears
to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him?


Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on debian-legal as a whole.  Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
his local laws.


Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the 
right to rule the world?


I don't give a monkeys about American criminal law, because I don't live 
there. And I have no desire to visit there.


And what would you do about the Sklyarov affair? What he did was 
criminal under US law, I agree. But under Russian law (the law of his 
local jurisdiction) it was MANDATORY!


You're basically claiming that if American law flatly contradicts the 
law of some other country, then people living in that country have to 
ignore their own law and abide by American law instead !!!


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

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.

Anyw

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a 
> > > DFSG
> > > issue.
> > The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO. 
> 
> Ha, speaking on behalf of your new paymasters already, I see! ;)

I am biased, but not because I'm on the FSF board. I'm biased because I
helped come up with the new AGPL *before* I was on the FSF board. :)

During the GPLv3 revision process, the AGPL compatibility clause was my
pet issue. The general feeling (between Don Armstrong and others on
committee-D and from the bulk of comments summitted as part of the
process) was that we wanted compatibility with a license that tried to
do what the AGPL did but in a different way. The old method (i.e.,
barriers to modification of the software) seemed problematic for a few
reasons. I helped come up with the current methods in the AGPLv3.

> > If you have a problem with what it's trying to do, you won't like it
> > (the goal is unchanged). If you have a problem with how it did it
> > (the position that I, and most commenters on earlier drafts) were
> > in, you will probably be much happier.
> > 
> > In any case, a new version of the AGPLv3 draft is due up soon.
> > Please look at the old one and comment on the new one when it's up.
> 
> Will it have an actual diff against GPLv3? I get the impression it's
> meant to be GPLv3 with minor changes to achieve that goal, but
> actually seeing if there are just minor changes or other things as
> well was hard when the first draft came out.

Sure. We can make this.

AFAIK, there is one added subsection and one swapped section (the
section that talks about compatibily with the AGPLv3 in the GPLv3). I'll
push to release a diff.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:28:03 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Francesco is not a lawyer,
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The
> > usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."):
> 
> Uh, no, you didn't:
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00271.html
> 
> I don't know why people make such a fuss out of someone pointing out a
> fact that they themselves acknowledge elsewhere.

Come on!  It was in the message Iain Nicol was replying to and quoting.
I assumed he had actually *read* the message he was replying to and
thought there was no use in repeating what I am not, all the time...

Anyway, let's restate it one more time: IANAL, IANADD.

-- 
 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


pgp3sWmtvO6kq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:45:48 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:

> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> > It does not even seem to express certainty...
> 
> (I am not a professor of English)
> 
> The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.
[...]
> To express
> uncertainty, it might be clearer to say "I fear that " or
> "I think that ".

Good, thanks for the explanation.

-- 
 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


pgpeDScsPZh27.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 20:43:22 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:

> On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > My case was:
> >
> > Q: Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
> > A: I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(
> >
> > Frankly speaking, it seems more similar to your first example, than
> > to your second one...
> 
> I spent some time thinking about this while out hiking today, and I
> think  you're probably right.  While Mr. Finney's post about the
> meaning of "I am  afraid that..." is spot on, I also tend to think the
> above would not fall  into the realm of "legal advice."  Not so much
> because of the answer, but  because of the nature of the question. 
> The sort of vague, "what about..."  sort of question lacks the
> particulars necessary to really illicit a legal  advice sort of
> response. My apologies for not looking at every factor first.

That's OK, apologies accepted...

-- 
 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


pgpF8sVqLveEG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:50:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Um, no.  "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
> resolve the inconsistency.  If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
> copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license [...]

Well, the GPLv3 text itself is licensed under the terms "Everyone is
permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document,
but changing it is not allowed.", so if your license is going to include
the rest of the GPL, it's going to include the bit that says ignoring
restrictions is okay.

> If I go to the effort of writing
> This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
> published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
> prohibition in section 7 of the license on additional restrictions does
> not apply and the permission in section 13 is not granted.
> then I have *explicitly addressed* the clause in GPLv3 which purports to
> prohibit additional restrictions.  Which statement is going to take
> precedence?  At best I've created a lawyer bomb because my intentions are
> not clear; 

So I'd say that is, in fact, the best you can hope for -- and if you've
made the licensing terms fairly deliberately ambiguous, I wouldn't bet on
you being able to enforce your "can't link with AGPLv3" requirement, even
if I wouldn't bet on you not being able to enforce it. I'd be reluctant
to accept something that deliberately ambiguous into the archive, even
though either outcome was DFSG-free.

> at worst I've succeeded in licensing my code in a manner that's
> incompatible with the GPLv3.  But that's exactly the same problem that we
> had with GPLv2, so what was the point of adding this clause?

Presumably the idea is to discourage licensing proliferation by making
it hard to extend the GPL in incompatible ways -- perhaps not impossible,
but definitely harder than it would be without that clause.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
> > Francesco is not a lawyer,
> I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."):

Uh, no, you didn't:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00271.html

I don't know why people make such a fuss out of someone pointing out a
fact that they themselves acknowledge elsewhere.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:20:25AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> 
> > I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a DFSG
> > issue.
> The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO. 

Ha, speaking on behalf of your new paymasters already, I see! ;)

> If you have a
> problem with what it's trying to do, you won't like it (the goal is
> unchanged). If you have a problem with how it did it (the position that
> I, and most commenters on earlier drafts) were in, you will probably be
> much happier.
> 
> In any case, a new version of the AGPLv3 draft is due up soon. Please
> look at the old one and comment on the new one when it's up.

Will it have an actual diff against GPLv3? I get the impression it's
meant to be GPLv3 with minor changes to achieve that goal, but actually
seeing if there are just minor changes or other things as well was hard
when the first draft came out.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Joe Smith]

"Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Francesco Poli:


To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
the SHING GPL.


"SHING GPL" ?


"Sun HP IBM Nokia Google", major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries
of this clause:

| You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
| having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
| with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply
| with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which
| you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the
| covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under
| your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making
| any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship
| with you.

Among other things, this allows to run
GPLv3-software-turned-proprietary on grid-like services.  I would have
preferred that this remained a grey area.


On the other hand, without this, there would be the legal questions of 
runing GPL software on your web server,
when you do not own the server. (I think that some colo-facilities work like 
this, and know that some hosting services work like this.)


I'm not really to concerned with people running modified GPL'ed programs on 
third party grid services,
as they could in theory do the same thing with an internal grid service if 
they had one. Ideally
they would release any useful changes anyway. If not it still does not seem 
like too big a deal (to me).




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:09:53AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
> >people on debian-legal as a whole.  Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
> >criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
> >his local laws.

> If this were true, the logical consequences are absurd. If I send an 
> email to my friend Bob in the USA, suggesting that he should go to the 
> judge and ask for leniency on his drink driving charge, I can now be 
> arrested for committing a criminal offence next time I travel to the USA?

It's unlikely (Bob has to be in a jurisdiction within the US where offering
such legal advice is a criminal offense, and someone has to file charges,
and the police have to decide it's worth their bother to get a warrant for
your arrest, and the warrant has to come to the attention of someone you
come in contact with when you enter the US), but seems possible.

> Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

Do you also count on First Amendment protection against charges of libel,
slander, and false advertising?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Adam Borowski wrote:

Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're
moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that
you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs-
the room being empty.  The voice can tell me a lot while my feedback is
very limited.

Or, take your common dumb temperature control: you have a box with two
buttons and a simple LCD display which can show only two digits.  Yet,
nowadays everything tends to have a chip inside -- and if anything inside
has anything to do with GPLv3, you suddenly need to convey the legal
notices...

My point is that the requirement of every interactive interface having a
feature to display the legal notices can be a severe use constraint.


And this is different from GPLv2, or not?

Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Adam Borowski]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:00:38PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >Free Software, when it's really free and not merely a ruse to sneak some
> >proprietary crap through, makes us free from legal concerns -- both "am I
> >allowed to use X?" and "I wouldn't want people to have a right to use Y
> >without paying me" are legal concerns here. Having legal notices
> >everywhere destroys this freedom.
> 
> So the notice "You may play ball games in this park" destroys the 
> freedom to play ball games in the park?

If the notice is posted on a sign at the entrance to the park, no.  If the
amount of signs is so bad that it interferes with play, then yes, the
freedom is hampered.

> >Well, let's take a system with two user interfaces:
> >1) a GUI where you set up rules like "if someone approaches the computer,
> >   do X.  If someone leaves the room and there's no one else in, do Y.".
> > 2) hands-free interface where user interacts by moving around, waving
> >hands, etc, and gets feedback using voice.
> >
> >Interface 1 can have "Help | About" just fine.  The problem is, you need to
> >make it possible to get legal notices using _every single interface_.  For
> >interface 2, this could be something like "to unblank screen, approach the
> >computer.  To blank it, move away.  To get told legal notices, jump".
> 
> Yep. Why is this worse than the GUI or command-line versions? You could 
> argue that the command could be accidentally invoked, but that's true of 
> buttons in GUIs or mistakenly typing -V instead of -v on a command-line 
> app. Just pick a sequence of movements that it's very difficult to do 
> without meaning it.

Ok, let's scrap the high-tech detector with enough resolution to tell you're
moving your hand and take a more realistic one which can just tell that
you're sitting at the computer -vs- being somewhere else in the room -vs-
the room being empty.  The voice can tell me a lot while my feedback is
very limited.

Or, take your common dumb temperature control: you have a box with two
buttons and a simple LCD display which can show only two digits.  Yet,
nowadays everything tends to have a chip inside -- and if anything inside
has anything to do with GPLv3, you suddenly need to convey the legal
notices...


My point is that the requirement of every interactive interface having a
feature to display the legal notices can be a severe use constraint.

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Adam Borowski wrote:

The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being
advertised, but GPL and FSF position. 


This seems an unfairly perjorative way of saying "the list of rights the 
user acquires with the software". This clause is not about making the 
GNU Manifesto (or even a copy of the GPL) pop up every time you start an 
application. No text is mandated.



And while informing users is not bad
when done once, it's an abomination if every single piece of software does
that on its own.  If I use Debian, I already do know that I'm allowed to do
X, Y, Z thanks to the DFSG, and there is no need to repeat that on every
step. 


Except that the GPL also allows you to do Q, but requires you to do R if 
you do so, both of which are not mentioned in the DFSG.


Not to mention the fact that many Debian or Debian-derived distribution 
users (e.g. Ubuntu) may never have heard of the DFSG but use the 
software. I think it's reasonable for the software they use to tell them 
what rights they have to it.



Especially when I didn't ask to be spammed with that notice.
Repeatedly receiving some text has a price paid in my attention span, making
me lose time which could be used for just anything else.  It's a cost which
in some corner cases can be significantly detrimental to usability.  I'm not
blind, but I can imagine the time wasted to go through the legal notice with
a Braille reader or such.


Again, the clause does not say that the user must be forced to be 
presented with the information.



While for GUI apps having an "About" menu
item is usually not an issue, legal notices are a significant burden for
console stuff, both full-screen and line-based.  

How so?


For line-based stuff, yeah, you're right.  Having "bc" and "colordiff" in
mind, I forgot about having --spam-me-with-legal-notices as an option merely
mentioned in the manpage -- even though this contradicts the requirement
about the notice being "prominently visible". 


I don't think so. For someone who uses command-line software, a 
command-line switch like --version or --help is the equivalent of Help | 
About.



In a non-menu/non-command
based full-screen program having a key combination bring up the legal
notices could also be a solution, albeit often an annoying one.  Let's
imagine the following list of keys:
  * arrows -- move
  * q  -- quit
  * ^L -- show legal notices
Ugh, 33% of explanation being wasted on legal things.  Extremely ugly,
especially if you consider that for many of us most of the point of Free
Software is not having the legal system stand in our way. 


Except that copyleft is entirely built on the legal system.


With Free
Software, we (ideally) don't have to care about Intellectual Property,
license fees, patents, trade secrets, etc -- just use/modify/copy the
software whenever it is for our benefit.  GPL gives an extra guarantee that
my work won't be used in a way inaccessible to me -- while forbidding me to
become a "bad guy" in this regard. 


And that's an important extra guarantee and obligation that the user 
needs to know about.



Free Software, when it's really free and
not merely a ruse to sneak some proprietary crap through, makes us free from
legal concerns -- both "am I allowed to use X?" and "I wouldn't want people
to have a right to use Y without paying me" are legal concerns here.
Having legal notices everywhere destroys this freedom.


So the notice "You may play ball games in this park" destroys the 
freedom to play ball games in the park?



Well, let's take a system with two user interfaces:
1) a GUI where you set up rules like "if someone approaches the computer, do
   X.  If someone leaves the room and there's no one else in, do Y.".
2) hands-free interface where user interacts by moving around, waving hands,
   etc, and gets feedback using voice.

Interface 1 can have "Help | About" just fine.  The problem is, you need to
make it possible to get legal notices using _every single interface_.  For
interface 2, this could be something like "to unblank screen, approach the
computer.  To blank it, move away.  To get told legal notices, jump".


Yep. Why is this worse than the GUI or command-line versions? You could 
argue that the command could be accidentally invoked, but that's true of 
buttons in GUIs or mistakenly typing -V instead of -v on a command-line 
app. Just pick a sequence of movements that it's very difficult to do 
without meaning it.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Adam Borowski]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> >Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then? 
> 
> I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't 
> see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.

The only difference is that it's not the author of the software who is being
advertised, but GPL and FSF position.  And while informing users is not bad
when done once, it's an abomination if every single piece of software does
that on its own.  If I use Debian, I already do know that I'm allowed to do
X, Y, Z thanks to the DFSG, and there is no need to repeat that on every
step.  Especially when I didn't ask to be spammed with that notice.
Repeatedly receiving some text has a price paid in my attention span, making
me lose time which could be used for just anything else.  It's a cost which
in some corner cases can be significantly detrimental to usability.  I'm not
blind, but I can imagine the time wasted to go through the legal notice with
a Braille reader or such.


> >While for GUI apps having an "About" menu
> >item is usually not an issue, legal notices are a significant burden for
> >console stuff, both full-screen and line-based.  
> 
> How so?

For line-based stuff, yeah, you're right.  Having "bc" and "colordiff" in
mind, I forgot about having --spam-me-with-legal-notices as an option merely
mentioned in the manpage -- even though this contradicts the requirement
about the notice being "prominently visible".  In a non-menu/non-command
based full-screen program having a key combination bring up the legal
notices could also be a solution, albeit often an annoying one.  Let's
imagine the following list of keys:
  * arrows -- move
  * q  -- quit
  * ^L -- show legal notices
Ugh, 33% of explanation being wasted on legal things.  Extremely ugly,
especially if you consider that for many of us most of the point of Free
Software is not having the legal system stand in our way.  With Free
Software, we (ideally) don't have to care about Intellectual Property,
license fees, patents, trade secrets, etc -- just use/modify/copy the
software whenever it is for our benefit.  GPL gives an extra guarantee that
my work won't be used in a way inaccessible to me -- while forbidding me to
become a "bad guy" in this regard.  Free Software, when it's really free and
not merely a ruse to sneak some proprietary crap through, makes us free from
legal concerns -- both "am I allowed to use X?" and "I wouldn't want people
to have a right to use Y without paying me" are legal concerns here.
Having legal notices everywhere destroys this freedom.
 
> >And just think about software which communicates using voice (hands-free
> >things, for example).
> 
> Why does voice-communicating software have any further problems? The ALNs
> can be read out at the user's request.

Well, let's take a system with two user interfaces:
1) a GUI where you set up rules like "if someone approaches the computer, do
   X.  If someone leaves the room and there's no one else in, do Y.".
2) hands-free interface where user interacts by moving around, waving hands,
   etc, and gets feedback using voice.

Interface 1 can have "Help | About" just fine.  The problem is, you need to
make it possible to get legal notices using _every single interface_.  For
interface 2, this could be something like "to unblank screen, approach the
computer.  To blank it, move away.  To get told legal notices, jump".

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Adam Borowski wrote:
Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then? 


I don't think so. The advertising clause was highly impractical. I don't 
see informing users of their legal rights as being impractical.



And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one -- instead
of just "advertising materials" which in free software there usually none,
GPLv3 forces us to vomit legal crap right in the face of every single user,
even at a cost to functionality.  


I don't see that at all. Where does it say that the ALNs have to be 
compulsorily presented to the user at each run, or even once? The 
ability to display them merely has to be "convenient and prominently 
visible".


How can having the equivalent of a Help | About menu item ever be a cost 
to functionality?


One of the good things about the GPLv3 version of this requirement is 
that you do not have to preserve the _mechanism_ for displaying ALNs. If 
you acquire some software with a GUI interface where the ALNs are 
presented as the background image to the main GUI window, then you can 
switch them to Help | About without any problems. The text focuses on 
policy, not mechanism.



While for GUI apps having an "About" menu
item is usually not an issue, legal notices are a significant burden for
console stuff, both full-screen and line-based.  


How so?


And just think about
software which communicates using voice (hands-free things, for example).


Why does voice-communicating software have any further problems? The 
ALNs can be read out at the user's request.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Adam Borowski]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Iain Nicol wrote:
> >If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
> >would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
> >but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
> >interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.
> 
> My interactions with the FSF regarding the GPLv3 process, and this 
> clause, have led me to believe that this is not their intent. Their 
> intent is that any new interfaces (added by people who are not the 
> copyright holder on the entire work) must have ALNs.

Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then?  And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one -- instead
of just "advertising materials" which in free software there usually none,
GPLv3 forces us to vomit legal crap right in the face of every single user,
even at a cost to functionality.  While for GUI apps having an "About" menu
item is usually not an issue, legal notices are a significant burden for
console stuff, both full-screen and line-based.  And just think about
software which communicates using voice (hands-free things, for example).

Could the FSF be asked for an official statement?  Because if the
interpretation you mentioned is what they want, GPLv3 is SCARY.

-- 
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//  Never attribute to stupidity what can be
//  adequately explained by malice.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Steve Langasek wrote:

Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on debian-legal as a whole.  Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
his local laws.


If this were true, the logical consequences are absurd. If I send an 
email to my friend Bob in the USA, suggesting that he should go to the 
judge and ask for leniency on his drink driving charge, I can now be 
arrested for committing a criminal offence next time I travel to the USA?


Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Iain Nicol wrote:

If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.


My interactions with the FSF regarding the GPLv3 process, and this 
clause, have led me to believe that this is not their intent. Their 
intent is that any new interfaces (added by people who are not the 
copyright holder on the entire work) must have ALNs.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Sean Kellogg]

On Sunday 01 July 2007 01:53:52 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:31:00 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I will try to explain a few
> > things based on what I  know from law school. First up, there is a
> > pretty well established definition  for what constitutes "legal
> > advice." It can be phrased as: "particular  courses of action in
> > response to particular facts."  The particularity is  key.
> >
> > Here a good pair of examples --
> >
> > Not Legal Advice:
> > Q: Is it true that a judge can reduce your traffic ticket.
> > A: Yes.
> >
> > Legal Advice:
> > Q: I got a traffic ticket for going 20 miles over the speed limit,
> > what should  I do?
> > A: Go to the judge and argue for a decrease in the fine.
>
> My case was:
>
> Q: Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
> A: I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(
>
> Frankly speaking, it seems more similar to your first example, than to
> your second one...

I spent some time thinking about this while out hiking today, and I think 
you're probably right.  While Mr. Finney's post about the meaning of "I am 
afraid that..." is spot on, I also tend to think the above would not fall 
into the realm of "legal advice."  Not so much because of the answer, but 
because of the nature of the question.  The sort of vague, "what about..." 
sort of question lacks the particulars necessary to really illicit a legal 
advice sort of response. My apologies for not looking at every factor first.

> I mean: we were *not* talking about particular facts.  Iain Nicol was
> *not* telling me that he modified a GPLv3'd work and got sued by
> upstream because his newly implemented interactive interface does not
> display Appropriate Legal Notices.
> I did *not* suggest a particular course of action.  I did *not* answer
> "the requirement cannot be interpreted more liberally, but you can
> instead tell the judge that ..."
>
> What we were doing was discussing about possible interpretations of a
> clause in a just-published license...
>
> [...]
>
> > Where Francesco went wrong,  in my opinion, is
> > giving a definite answer to a definite question about a  third-party
> > license.
>
> Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> It does not even seem to express certainty...
>
> I am not an English native speaker, so I could be wrong about what
> sounds as a definite answer to an English mothertongue's ear.
> Should I begin to add IANAENS, to the list of disclaimers?

No, I think your current list of disclaimers is sufficient. I would just be 
careful about being definitive.  If someone walks away thinking they received 
specific advice on a particular question, then I think that crosses the line 
(at least, here in the US).  The international nature of all of this 
certainly causes additional complexity :)

I also encourage being a bit more tolerant of Mr. Towns' little reminders to 
the other readers that you, and others, are not supposed to be giving legal 
advice.  What you may decide does not constitute legal advice may very well 
come out differently for another person...  and I'm pretty sure we would all 
like to avoid someone filing a suit against Debian (or SPI) claiming they 
received legal advice from somebody on a Debian mailing list :)

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Ben Finney]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> It does not even seem to express certainty...

(I am not a professor of English)

The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.

At one point it expressed both uncertainty and anxiety about the
assertion; "I fear that this assertion might be true". Then it was
used euphemistically to be polite about an assertion one *was* certain
about, but felt was bad for the other party so wanted to soften the
statement. Eventually this euphemistic usage became the main
understanding.

Most native English speakers, I think, would read the above as "Though
I regret the fact, I am certain that ". To express
uncertainty, it might be clearer to say "I fear that " or
"I think that ".

-- 
 \  "About four years ago, I was -- no, it was yesterday."  -- |
  `\ Steven Wright |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:22:08PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:

> > > Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
> > > GPLv2.

> > No, it's different from GPLv2 2c only in that it's extended to
> > "interactive user interfaces" instead of just programs that "read
> > commands interactively when run".

> 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.

> 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.

> 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".  It's fair to
point out that licenses with such clauses give less freedom to the user than
licenses without, but that does not mean they are "close to failing".  They
are clearly permitted, and I don't think it's useful to talk about
"proximity" to the line of DFSGness, because it's always possible to make
thinner and thinner slices.  We can cite many examples of clauses that we
consider non-free because they take more freedom from the user, and that's a
useful exercise to indicate which are free and which are not; but to call
something "close to non-free" is just an expression of your dislike for it,
masquerading as an objective judgement.

> [...]
> > > This clause is very close to fail DFSG#3.
> > > Hence, this is possibly a Freeness issue.

> > It's absurd to say that this requirement is permissible in the GPLv2
> > but not in the GPLv3.

> I didn't say that.
> It's not exaclty the same requirement and I didn't say that it's
> necessarily non-free. 

> 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?  If not, then why claim that "display a copyright notice if
you create a CLI" is ok, but "display a copyright notice if you create a
GUI" is not?

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.

> 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.

> > > This clause could be not enough to protect recipients from patent
> > > lawsuits, and thus make the work fail several DFSG, when there are
> > > actively enforced patents infringed by the work.

> > Um, no.  The DFSG does not require indemnification against third-party
> > claims; an actively-enforced patent may require us to *not distribute
> > the work at all*, but that's not a question of DFSG-freeness of the
> > work.

> 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 [...]",
> 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".

> If there are actively enforced patents, I not only need a copyright
> license in order to redistribute, but also a patent license.  If the
> patent license forbids me to redistribute, I think the work fails
> DFSG#1

No, it does not.  Just as cryptographic works that we couldn't distribute
from inside the US were never deemed "non-free", works that are subject to
third-party patents should not be.  They are not legally distributable, or
they are 

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Michael Poole]

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:

> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:44:29PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> I believe most European countries have some form of restriction
>> against passing oneself off as an attorney.
>
> Yes; Finland, Sweden and Estonia are apparently the only EU countries that 
> have
> no categorical rule prohibiting practicing law without qualifications.

"Practicing law without qualifications" is almost as vague as "legal
advice" -- where applied to public statements, it is just as vague.

Where does one draw the line between statements like "taking another
person's item without permission is theft" and those like "John Smith,
if you dance the Macarena before killing Judy Doe, you can not be
found guilty of murder"?  Where does one draw the line between sending
an analysis (not particular to a given person or action) to a mailing
list and representing someone else in court?

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:27:47 -0700 Chris Waters wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 
> > >   When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to
> > >   forbid
> > > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > > circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License
> > > with respect to the covered work,
> 
> > This clause is troublesome, as it seems to be overreaching.  For
> > instance, it could be interpreted as covering legal powers to forbid
> > "computer crimes" such as unauthorized intrusion into computer
> > systems.
> 
> > E.g.: suppose that the covered work is a vulnerability scanner, or
> > password cracker, or anyway a tool that could be used (among other
> > things) to break into other people's computers.  Using that tool in
> > this manner is exercising a right "under this License"
> 
> Using a tool is not exercising a right under the license.  The license
> concerns itself only with copying and modification.  (It is not an end
> user license agreement.)

Well, Section 2 of GPLv3 states, in part:

| This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the
| unmodified Program.

This can be a legal no-op in many jurisdictions where copyright does not
cover use, but not necessarily everywhere.

But anyway, there's not only copyright, there are software patents too
(and I should add "unfortunately").
Section 11 states, in part:

|   Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
| patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
| make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
| propagate the contents of its contributor version.

In jurisdictions where some contributor's essential patents are valid
and enforceable (and actively enforced) you need to accept the GNU GPL
v3 even for the sole purpose of using or running the program.

> Beyond that, I agree with MJ's analysis, but
> I think the point I raised is an important additional one.

I already kinda agreed with MJ Ray on this point: see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00279.html

> 
> > Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> > DFSG#1.
> 
> All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the
> waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright
> infringement).

I waive my right to sue for copyright infringement, when I license a
work under the GNU GPL v2?
That's new to me.
How can the copyleft mechanism be effective, if I cannot sue people who
do not comply with the license?!?

> The requirement in copyleft to provide source code can
> also be seen as a fee--in fact, this has been cited as a reason for
> considering the GPLv2 valid, enforcible and non- discriminatory with
> respect to anti-trust law.  If waving legal rights is a problem, we
> have no licenses left.

The requirement to provide source code of (redistributed) modified
versions is not waiving legal rights.
Which right *that I would enjoy by not accepting the license* am I
waiving?
The right to distribute modified versions without providing source?
I do not have such a right, unless I get permission from the copyright
holder of the unmodified work.  Accepting the license is the way to get
that permission.

[...]
> > > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has
> > > interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal
> > > Notices, your work need not make them do so.
> 
> > Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
> > GPLv2.
> 
> Are you talking about the missing "when started running...in the most
> ordinary way"?
[...]

I already explained what I am talking about: please see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00010.html


-- 
 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


pgpwucqm1E3B4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Michael Poole]

Chris Waters writes:

> All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the
> waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright
> infringement).

Explain, please.  There have been a number of copyright complaints
filed (in Germany and the US) over GPLed software.  The GPL's copyleft
nature did not bar those lawsuits.  I am not aware of any that went to
trial in the US, but at least one German lawsuit alleging GPL
violations was decided[1] for the licensor, and other cases (in both
countries) have settled with the defendant agreeing to comply with the
GPL.

[1]- http://www.gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

> The requirement in copyleft to provide source code can
> also be seen as a fee--in fact, this has been cited as a reason for
> considering the GPLv2 valid, enforcible and non- discriminatory with
> respect to anti-trust law.

That unattributed "has been cited" reads like a poor appeal to an
indefinite authority.  Daniel Wallace's failed anti-trust lawsuit
_cited_ such provisions as reasons to consider the GPLv2 invalid,
unenforceable and an unlawful conspiracy with respect to anti-trust
law.  We can see how far making that claim got him.

(Incidentally, neither the district court's ruling[2] to dismiss
Wallace's complaint, nor the appeals court's order[3] upholding
dismissal, treat the requirement to provide source code as a fee.  To
the contrary, their orders seem to view it primarily as a benefit to
the end user and to the software community.

[2]- http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf
[3]- 
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf
)

While there is a fairly broad range of what people on this list think
is a "fee", in the end, providing source code for software that one
distributes has never been considered a fee.  Giving up tangible
property, actions unrelated to software (such as petting a cat) and
intellectual property unrelated to the software in question (such as
over-broad patent defense clauses) have been considered fees.
Concessions necessary to exercise software freedoms have not.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Steve Langasek wrote:

If I go to the effort of writing

This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
prohibition in section 7 of the license on additional restrictions does
not apply and the permission in section 13 is not granted.

then I have *explicitly addressed* the clause in GPLv3 which purports to
prohibit additional restrictions.  


Yes, you have. Note that this is not the situation we have been 
considering up to now in this thread; the situation we have been 
considering is one where there is just a simple additional restriction 
(e.g. "if you redistribute you must send me a postcard").


Your above restriction also results in a consistent license. However, 
it's not GPLv3-compatible.



Which statement is going to take
precedence?  


Clearly, your explicit statement that section 7 does not apply. How 
could one argue otherwise?



At best I've created a lawyer bomb because my intentions are
not clear; at worst I've succeeded in licensing my code in a manner that's
incompatible with the GPLv3.  But that's exactly the same problem that we
had with GPLv2, so what was the point of adding this clause?


Because most of the time, people just add additional restrictions 
without also adding your language about section 7 - often because they 
don't realise they can't do that. This feature of the license combats 
cluelessness, not explicit intent.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:31:00 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:

[...]
> I will try to explain a few
> things based on what I  know from law school. First up, there is a
> pretty well established definition  for what constitutes "legal
> advice." It can be phrased as: "particular  courses of action in
> response to particular facts."  The particularity is  key.
> 
> Here a good pair of examples --
> 
> Not Legal Advice:
> Q: Is it true that a judge can reduce your traffic ticket.
> A: Yes.
> 
> Legal Advice:
> Q: I got a traffic ticket for going 20 miles over the speed limit,
> what should  I do?
> A: Go to the judge and argue for a decrease in the fine.

My case was:

Q: Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
A: I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(

Frankly speaking, it seems more similar to your first example, than to
your second one...

I mean: we were *not* talking about particular facts.  Iain Nicol was
*not* telling me that he modified a GPLv3'd work and got sued by
upstream because his newly implemented interactive interface does not
display Appropriate Legal Notices.
I did *not* suggest a particular course of action.  I did *not* answer
"the requirement cannot be interpreted more liberally, but you can
instead tell the judge that ..."

What we were doing was discussing about possible interpretations of a
clause in a just-published license...

[...]
> Where Francesco went wrong,  in my opinion, is
> giving a definite answer to a definite question about a  third-party
> license.

Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
It does not even seem to express certainty...

I am not an English native speaker, so I could be wrong about what
sounds as a definite answer to an English mothertongue's ear.
Should I begin to add IANAENS, to the list of disclaimers?


-- 
 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


pgpyF2qBGSoj5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Chris Waters]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:

> >   When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
> > respect to the covered work,

> This clause is troublesome, as it seems to be overreaching.  For
> instance, it could be interpreted as covering legal powers to forbid
> "computer crimes" such as unauthorized intrusion into computer systems.

> E.g.: suppose that the covered work is a vulnerability scanner, or
> password cracker, or anyway a tool that could be used (among other
> things) to break into other people's computers.  Using that tool in this
> manner is exercising a right "under this License"

Using a tool is not exercising a right under the license.  The license
concerns itself only with copying and modification.  (It is not an end
user license agreement.)  Beyond that, I agree with MJ's analysis, but
I think the point I raised is an important additional one.

> Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> DFSG#1.

All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the
waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright
infringement).  The requirement in copyleft to provide source code can
also be seen as a fee--in fact, this has been cited as a reason for
considering the GPLv2 valid, enforcible and non- discriminatory with
respect to anti-trust law.  If waving legal rights is a problem, we
have no licenses left.  If something that merely *can* "be seen as a
fee" is a problem, then all copylefts are non-free.

> > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> > Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> > interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
> > work need not make them do so.

> Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
> GPLv2.

Are you talking about the missing "when started running...in the most
ordinary way"?  That was highly ambiguous; this has the advantage of
being clear and direct, and I can't think of any circumstances where
it could actually be considered worse.  I actually think the new
wording is a great improvement, as it closes a highly ambiguous
loophole (the worst kind).

> What is more awkward is that it seems that when a non-interactive
> work is modified so that it becomes an interactive work, the
> modifier is *compelled* to implement these features in *any* newly
> created interactive interface.

Um, GPLv2 has basically the same requirement: "If the modified program
normally read commands interactively when run, you must cause it...to
print or display an announcement"  The *only* exception listed is
"if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such
an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to
print an announcement."  The only difference I see is the removal of
"normally", which, like "the most ordinary way" is rather ambiguous.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see how this is a freeness issue *if* we
consider the GPLv2 to be a free license.  The difference between these
requirements is *so* small that I don't see how anyone could accept
the one and reject the other.

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 01 juillet 2007 à 00:24 -0700, Sean Kellogg a écrit :
> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient 
> disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."  There are laws, 
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not 
> certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the advice is given 
> in.

You can also choose to ignore laws that are blatantly stupid and not
applicable. Otherwise you'll end up wondering which court you'll be
assigned to for breathing air and polluting it with your body carbon
dioxyde.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:44:29PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> I believe most European countries have some form of restriction
> against passing oneself off as an attorney.

Yes; Finland, Sweden and Estonia are apparently the only EU countries that have
no categorical rule prohibiting practicing law without qualifications.

-- 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice. 
> There is, however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for
> anybody representing someone else at trial to be legally trained.  The
> title "asianajaja" (one of the Finnish terms referring to a lawyer) is
> also legally restricted to only members of the bar association.

I believe most European countries have some form of restriction
against passing oneself off as an attorney. "Giving legal advice"
would be a violation of such a restriction, if the giver of the
advice pretended to be an attorney qualified to give the advice.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
  Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:31:00AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Now, as for me, I will admit that I don't know much about non-US law, 
> although 
> I would be very surprised to hear that law is more liberal on this point in 
> the EU than the US, since these "no practice without a license" laws are 
> consumer protection in nature, and as a general rule, the EU is more strict 
> than the US on such things.

Generally, Finnish (and I assume therefore EU) consumer protection does not
apply to transactions between private individuals (that is, when the seller is
not engaging in or practicing trade), and neither does it apply to situations
like debian-legal where nobody is selling anything.

I am not aware of any law in Finland regulating giving legal advice.  There is,
however, a (very recently instated) legal requirement for anybody representing
someone else at trial to be legally trained.  The title "asianajaja" (one of
the Finnish terms referring to a lawyer) is also legally restricted to only
members of the bar association.

IANLT (... legally trained) and all that
-- 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> It certainly addresses the problem. Let's look at the two possibilities:

> Before:
>   GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
>   Restriction: you can't do X

> Result - conflict and confusion; non-redistributable code

> After:
>   GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
>   GPL: If I say you can't do X, you can ignore me
>   Restriction: you can't do X

> Result - the license is consistent, although it has one part which 
> nullifies another part. This is similar to clauses of the form "The 
> previous part of this clause does not apply if you are wearing blue 
> underwear".

> If you (in your example) license under GPLv3 + restriction, then by 
> picking GPLv3 you are giving me, the recipient of the code, permission 
> to remove the restriction. If you didn't want to give me that 
> permission, you shouldn't have used GPLv3 - just as if you didn't want 
> to give me permission to link my code with the Affero GPL (to take one 
> example of many), you shouldn't have used GPLv3.

Um, no.  "You shouldn't have used GPLv3" doesn't have any legal force to
resolve the inconsistency.  If I license my work under the GPLv3, I *as the
copyright holder* can still modify the terms of my code's license however I
damn well want, regardless of what the GPLv3 itself says about whether that
is permissible, because the GPLv3 is not binding on *me the copyright
holder*.

If I go to the effort of writing

This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
published by the Free Software Foundation, with the exception that the
prohibition in section 7 of the license on additional restrictions does
not apply and the permission in section 13 is not granted.

then I have *explicitly addressed* the clause in GPLv3 which purports to
prohibit additional restrictions.  Which statement is going to take
precedence?  At best I've created a lawyer bomb because my intentions are
not clear; at worst I've succeeded in licensing my code in a manner that's
incompatible with the GPLv3.  But that's exactly the same problem that we
had with GPLv2, so what was the point of adding this clause?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Sean Kellogg]

Lots of questions since I last posted...  lost of people getting testy. Can't 
do much about that, but I will try to explain a few things based on what I 
know from law school. First up, there is a pretty well established definition 
for what constitutes "legal advice." It can be phrased as: "particular 
courses of action in response to particular facts."  The particularity is 
key.

Here a good pair of examples --

Not Legal Advice:
Q: Is it true that a judge can reduce your traffic ticket.
A: Yes.

Legal Advice:
Q: I got a traffic ticket for going 20 miles over the speed limit, what should 
I do?
A: Go to the judge and argue for a decrease in the fine.

The critical difference is the particularity of fact, both by the questioner 
and the answerer.  Which is why debian-legal, for the most part, is in the 
clear (at least in the US, more on that in a moment).  Folks show up and ask 
general questions about legal implication and folks respond saying here are 
various things to consider.  An interesting grey area is with regards to the 
DFSG, which is a legal document, of sorts, but debian (as an organization) 
can provide advice to others on how to interpret it.  Just as a car salesman 
can explain the terms of a car sale document, so can debian lay-persons 
explain the terms of their own governing docs.  Where Francesco went wrong, 
in my opinion, is giving a definite answer to a definite question about a 
third-party license.

Now, as for me, I will admit that I don't know much about non-US law, although 
I would be very surprised to hear that law is more liberal on this point in 
the EU than the US, since these "no practice without a license" laws are 
consumer protection in nature, and as a general rule, the EU is more strict 
than the US on such things. Second, I am not technically a lawyer, while I 
have completed all of the necessary education, testing, and certification 
steps to become so, I have not yet taken the final oath and paid my 
membership fees.  Which means I too cannot provide legal advice, regardless 
of jurisdiction.

The reason I feel the above is not legal advice is because it is non-specific 
in nature.  I am doing my best to describe the law and point out what I 
believe was an improper action.  The above does not apply to a specific set 
of facts beyond those that have already transpired to which I've said, in my 
opinion, were improper.

On the topic of disclaimers, while I always enjoy a fun word game, your 
attempt to point out circular reason fails.  Disclaimers do not work for the 
purposes of shielding anyone from the prohibition on providing legal advice, 
it either is, or is not, legal advice.  However, a disclaimer is a nice 
courtesy, and perhaps a wise idea, in that it can avoid the situation where 
the advisee acts on that legal advice, ends up in a bind, and comes after the 
advisor.  It's like committing a common tort but doing it in a way that there 
is no harm...  yes, there is possible suit, but there will be no finding of 
damages.  It's just good sense.

On the topic of global jurisdiction, I wonder where the courts have fallen 
down on this topic?  I honestly don't know.  It was easy, before the 
internet, to say only CA lawyers could give advice to CA residents and 
businesses...  but with the internet, it's tricky. I imagine there is case 
law on this out there, since there is case law on things like minimal 
contacts established by a globably accessible website. Something to look 
into.

On Sunday 01 July 2007 02:36:53 am Mike Bird wrote:
> Personally, IANAL.  I don't give legal advice.  I argue law all I want.
The above quote struck me.  My understanding is you can argue the law all you 
want. However, when giving specific advice to specific questions, you move 
from the arguing phase to the legal advice phase--regardless of whether you 
are a lawyer.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Mike Bird]

On Sunday 01 July 2007 09:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
> people on debian-legal as a whole.  Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
> criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
> his local laws.

Steve,

Where were you when you gave that legal advice without a disclaimer, and
where are you licensed (or "certified") to practice law?

IANAL

--Mike Bird


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Santiago Vila]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:

> Firstoff, I'm not sure the "BSD" license mentioned in DFSG#10 is the
> 4-clause BSD.

Currently, it is not, but it was. See Bug#43347.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:22:30AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> >Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a 
> >sufficient disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."  There 
> >are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those 
> >who not certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the 
> >advice is given in. 

> Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears 
> to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him?

Francesco isn't giving advice to people in Italy, he's giving advice to
people on debian-legal as a whole.  Given that unlicensed legal advice is a
criminal matter as Sean mentions, there is more to be concerned about than
his local laws.

> Does this line of argument mean that when I watch "Boston Legal", and 
> decide to follow the advice some of those (fictional) lawyers gave their 
> clients, I can sue the program when it all goes wrong, because the word 
> "Legal" in the name gave me a reasonable expectation that they were 
> providing "legal advice"?

No, because nobody in Boston Legal is advising you the watcher to do
anything.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> I'm no fan of Affero, but permitting linking with it is certainly not a DFSG
> issue.

The new Affero is *much* better than the old Affero IMHO. If you have a
problem with what it's trying to do, you won't like it (the goal is
unchanged). If you have a problem with how it did it (the position that
I, and most commenters on earlier drafts) were in, you will probably be
much happier.

In any case, a new version of the AGPLv3 draft is due up soon. Please
look at the old one and comment on the new one when it's up.

Later,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:40:24 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:

> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> If you believe this, then you are misreading the DFSG.  We explicitly
> hold those two licenses up as exemplars of a free software license, to
> make it clear what the rest of the DFSG is about.

Firstoff, I'm not sure the "BSD" license mentioned in DFSG#10 is the
4-clause BSD.
At least, in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD there's the 3-clause BSD,
with no OAC...

> If you find the
> exemplars are close to failing your idea of what the DFSG means, then
> your idea is wrong.

DFSG#10 merely states that the listed licenses """are examples of
licenses that we consider "free"."""
It does not say that those are the best possible DFSG-free licenses, or
that they are far from the boundaries of DFSG-freeness.

In fact, providing examples that are deep inside the DFSG-freeness
region and very far from its boundaries, would not be much useful to
"make it clear what the rest of the DFSG is about".
Imagine a DFSG#10 that only stated that Debian considers public domain
software as DFSG-free: it would not clarify much...


-- 
 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


pgpWKwo6rtF4I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3 (new interactive interfaces)

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun,  1 Jul 2007 12:43:27 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
[...]
> > In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3.
> > Work B is the "work based on the Program" referred to in the first
> > sentence of Section 5:
> > 
> > |   You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications
> > |   to
> > | produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
> > | terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
> > | conditions:
> > 
> > On the other hand, work A is the "Program".
> > Is that right?  I cannot see any other reasonable interpretation.
> 
> Now I'm unsure.  Earlier, the Program was defined as "any
> copyrightable work licensed under this License".

Yes, it's the work that's licensed to you under the terms of the GNU GPL
v3 and that you (who are reading the license to see what you are
permitted to do) have received.  This is, AFAICT, "the Program" for you,
when you are modifying it and going to distribute your modified version,
which is a "work based on the Program".

Of course, when you distribute your modified version to me, I read the
text of the license and what *for you* was the "work based on the
Program", is now *for me* "the Program".  And so forth, should I decide
to further modify what I received from you...

Does it make sense?
Should I add that IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, ...?

> Because the GPL is a
> copyleft, isn't the modified Program also the Program?

Yes, but for your licensees that receive your modified version from you.

> Is 5d's work
> the original or modified work?

As I explained, I think that it's the modified work.

> Is 5d's Program the original or the
> modified Program?

I think it's the original work.
Otherwise, why use two different terms in clause 5d ("work" and
"Program") for the same meaning?

> I thought it was 'the work' [= work B] as mentioned
> in the first part of 5d.  It seems a bit fiddly for the work to change
> in 5 to mean the modified work but the Program never to change.

I don't see this as a change.
Section 5 talks about conveying a "a work based on the Program":

|   You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
| produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
| terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
| conditions:

Then it states the first condition that must be met:

|  a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you
| modified it, and giving a relevant date.

Here, the "work" is the "work based on the Program", otherwise stating
that you modified it would be utterly false.
Likewise for the following conditions, up to clause 5d, where I believe
that "work" is the "work based on the Program", while "Program" is the
unmodified version as you received it...

Hope this clarifies.


-- 
 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


pgpngNmbljCMa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

If you believe this, then you are misreading the DFSG.  We explicitly
hold those two licenses up as exemplars of a free software license, to
make it clear what the rest of the DFSG is about.  If you find the
exemplars are close to failing your idea of what the DFSG means, then
your idea is wrong.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Stopping the HINALs, was: Final text of GPL v3

[MJ Ray]

Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Francesco is not a lawyer, [...]
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message [...]
> 
> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient
> disclaimer.

JOOI when did you send that here?  I found 'I very much believe that all
residences of a jurisdiction should be able to fully discuss the
implication of the law and how it should be applied' but not the above ;-)

> [...] There are laws,
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
> certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the advice is given
> in. [...]

However, AFAIK, aj is not in the Bar Association of any jurisdiction
(so doesn't know for sure whether Francesco is a lawyer, only that he's
claimed not repeatedly on this list not to be so - given the popularity
of lawyers among debian users, that might be smoke) and aj doesn't have
Francesco under 24/7 surveillance (so doesn't know for sure whether or
not Francesco based his comments on legal advice).  aj is flashing the
blindingly obvious on debian-legal in a particularly irritating manner.

> But definitive statements like "I wish it could, but I am afraid it
> cannot..." in response to a question about the meaning of a particular term
> in a legal document is arguably legal advice.

Someone stating their fears is arguably legal advice?  Quick!  Let's all
stop describing what we feel before someone hurts themselves(!)

> > > that isn't legal advice,
> >
> > Since I explicitly noted that IANAL, it goes without saying that I
> > cannot give legal advice.
> 
> This, of course, is patently false.  Anyone can provide legal advice...

It depends if you read "legal advice" as "advice about the law" (as you
seem to) or "advice from the law" (which is how I'd read it).

> [...] Here, on an email list
> entitled "debian-legal" I think one might have a reasonable expectation that
> actual lawyers were providing advice. [...]

Shall we ask to beef up http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ ?

Maybe take the FAQ text:
  Debian's conclusion that a particular computer program is free
  software, and our choice to distribute it, is an evaluation made for
  our own purposes. It is not a legal statement on which you can rely,
  either as a user, software developer, or distributor. We do our best,
  but we are not lawyers. /We are unpaid volunteers. We make no guarantees./

> To that end, Mr. Towns' continued reminders that you are not, in fact, a
> lawyer, is helpful to those who may be mistaken that you are, as it would
> appear, providing legal advice.

I feel it's unnecessary noise, statements of the obvious that obscure the
signal.  If we can do something to stamp it out, we should.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3 (new interactive interfaces)

[MJ Ray]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> The scenario I am mainly worried about is the following.
> 
> The work A is published under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
> A has *no* interactive interfaces, because it's not an interactive work.
> I receive work A and want to create a modified work based on A.
> The modified work is named B and has one, newly implemented, interactive
> interface.  Hence, work B is an interactive work.
> I want to distribute work B in source form.
> 
> In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3.
> Work B is the "work based on the Program" referred to in the first
> sentence of Section 5:
> 
> |   You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
> | produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
> | terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
> | conditions:
> 
> On the other hand, work A is the "Program".
> Is that right?  I cannot see any other reasonable interpretation.

Now I'm unsure.  Earlier, the Program was defined as "any copyrightable
work licensed under this License".  Because the GPL is a copyleft, isn't
the modified Program also the Program?  Is 5d's work the original or
modified work?  Is 5d's Program the original or the modified Program?
I thought it was 'the work' [= work B] as mentioned in the first part of
5d.  It seems a bit fiddly for the work to change in 5 to mean the
modified work but the Program never to change.

> > > >   7. Additional Terms.
> > > [...]
> > I share these reservations.  A problem to watch for in GPLv3 packages.
> 
> Hooray!  Another check-on-case-by-case-basis license!  :-(

To be fair, some people have tried to use GPLv2's requirements about
notices to include invariant sections.  I think this will be less common
and less troublesome than many licences.

> Thanks for replying to my comments.

No worries.  Thanks for the thorough analysis, flagging many potential
problems, even if I'm not convinced that there any DFSG-busters.
I'm very demotivated by the GPLv3 and the way it has been produced (not
sure which of this and FDL 1.2 was worse for me, to be frank) and it's
rather inescapable, so I probably wouldn't have looked so closely at it
without this thread you started.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 00:24:58 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:

> On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Francesco is not a lawyer,
> >
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The
> > usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand why you
> > seem to have such fun in pointing fingers at other people and
> > repeating "he/she's not a lawyer!", "he/she's not a Debian
> > developer!"...
> 
> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a
> sufficient  disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."

Mmmh, I take note: disclaimers are useless.

> There are laws,  criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice
> by those who not  certified by the Bar Association within the
> jurisdiction the advice is given  in.  There is no exception provided
> by adding disclaimers, there is only the  question of whether or not
> legal advice was given.
> 
> You can raise questions as to whether something is, or is not, legal
> advice.   But definitive statements like "I wish it could, but I am
> afraid it  cannot..." in response to a question about the meaning of a
> particular term  in a legal document is arguably legal advice.

I was merely giving my own lay-person opinion about what I think would
be the correct interpretation of a clause in a legal document (after
having explicitly stated that I am not a lawyer).
I'm having a hard time in believing that this is considered providing
legal advice, in Italy or elsewhere...

If only lawyers in their own jurisdictions are legally allowed to give
such answers to questions directed to debian-legal, then I'm afraid the
Debian Project should shut this list down ASAP.  Or, at least,
explicitly warn that only lawyers (certified to practice law in *every*
jurisdiction reached by Debian mailing lists!) are allowed to provide
answers.  At that point, I think that most threads would become
single-message...  :-(

[...]

> Here, on an email list  entitled
> "debian-legal" I think one might have a reasonable expectation that 
> actual lawyers were providing advice.

The description[1] of the list states:

| debian-legal mailing list
| Copyright, licensing and patent issues
|
| Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc.
|
| This list is not moderated; posting is allowed by anyone.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/

I have never had the expectation that answers on debian-legal were being
given (only) by actual lawyers.  Maybe I have strange expectations or
lack thereof...

> 
> To that end, Mr. Towns' continued reminders that you are not, in fact,
> a  lawyer, is helpful to those who may be mistaken that you are, as it
> would  appear, providing legal advice.

Mmmmh, I take note: disclaimers are useful.

Now, I wonder: if IANAL disclaimers are useless, why HINAL (He Is Not A
Lawyer) disclaimers are useful?!?

Puzzled.

-- 
 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


pgpOt5zHXuRjA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Florian Weimer]

* Francesco Poli:

>> To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
>> the SHING GPL.
>
> "SHING GPL" ?

"Sun HP IBM Nokia Google", major funders of the FSF and beneficiaries
of this clause:

| You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
| having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
| with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply
| with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which
| you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the
| covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under
| your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making
| any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship
| with you.

Among other things, this allows to run
GPLv3-software-turned-proprietary on grid-like services.  I would have
preferred that this remained a grey area.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:20:56 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > [...]
> > >   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> > [...]
> > > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has
> > > interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal
> > > Notices, your work need not make them do so.
> 
> > Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in
> > GPLv2.
> 
> No, it's different from GPLv2 2c only in that it's extended to
> "interactive user interfaces" instead of just programs that "read
> commands interactively when run".

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.

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.

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.
 
[...]
> > This clause is very close to fail DFSG#3.
> > Hence, this is possibly a Freeness issue.
> 
> It's absurd to say that this requirement is permissible in the GPLv2
> but not in the GPLv3.

I didn't say that.
It's not exaclty the same requirement and I didn't say that it's
necessarily non-free. 

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.
Whether it fails or passes is to be decided: I simply said "possibly",
you say it's OK.  Let's see what others think...

> 
> > This clause could be not enough to protect recipients from patent
> > lawsuits, and thus make the work fail several DFSG, when there are
> > actively enforced patents infringed by the work.
> 
> Um, no.  The DFSG does not require indemnification against third-party
> claims; an actively-enforced patent may require us to *not distribute
> the work at all*, but that's not a question of DFSG-freeness of the
> work.

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 [...]",
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".
If there are actively enforced patents, I not only need a copyright
license in order to redistribute, but also a patent license.  If the
patent license forbids me to redistribute, I think the work fails
DFSG#1; if no patent license is available to me, I am not allowed to
redistribute, and consequently the work again fails DFSG#1.

Or, at least, this is how I used to understand it...


-- 
 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


pgpHNLnbrqXzL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:33:55 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Francesco Poli:
> 
> >> Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis.  We already have
> >to, > because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved
> >are > very common.
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment that
> > GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance guarantee.
> > Some restrictions that can be legally added to a GPLv3'd work will
> > make the work non-free, so we have to check on a case-by-case
> > basis...  :-(
> 
> But in reality, this is nothing new.  People slap the GPLv2 on
> combined works which they cannot legally license this way.
   
> There have
> been quite a few surprises.  I don't think this change is a major
> issue for us, we just have to be careful as ever.

The major change is that with GPL v2 we can (hope to) convince upstream
to fix the situation, since it makes the resulting work undistributable.

On the other hand, with GPL v3, the very license seems to allow non-free
restrictions to be added, so we cannot any longer say "look, you cannot
do this" (or, at least, "look, this is contradictory", for cases where
the whole work is copyrighted by a single copyright holder...).

> 
> To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
> the SHING GPL.

"SHING GPL" ?
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time in understanding this...  :-(


-- 
 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


pgpp53c7HfZRn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Mike Bird]

On Sunday 01 July 2007 00:24, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient
> disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."  There are laws,
> criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not
> certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the advice is
> given in.  There is no exception provided by adding disclaimers, there is
> only the question of whether or not legal advice was given.

You are amazing Sean.  You do not state "IANAL" and therefore we conclude
that you are "certified" to practice law in every jurisdiction in which
debian-legal is read ... or did you think Italian law permits a foreign
attorney to provide legal advice by email concerning Italian law to an
Italian citizen in Italy?  Guess you're going to have to plan vacations
kind of carefully to avoid all those countries where you're now a felon.
As an officer of the court, you will be promptly confessing your crimes
to your state bar association, right?

Personally, IANAL.  I don't give legal advice.  I argue law all I want.

--Mike Bird


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Florian Weimer]

* Steve Langasek:

>>   All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
>> restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.  If the Program as you
>> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
>> governed by this License along with a term that is a further
>> restriction, you may remove that term.
>
> 
>
> WTF, seriously?

Yeah, totally my reaction as well.

> Reading this makes me want to go write some new code, license it
> under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
> watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional
> restriction has no legal force.

The "GPL version 2 or later" case is even more interesting. 8-)

>>   If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
>> and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
>> to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
>> publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
>> then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
>> available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
>> patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
>> consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
>> license to downstream recipients.  "Knowingly relying" means you have
>> actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
>> covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
>> in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
>> country that you have reason to believe are valid.
>
> Here I'm confused again.  What does making the source code available have to
> do with patents?  Isn't it the case that the license already requires source
> code availability?

Not to the general public, no.

> How does making the source code available help the patent problem?

If you the license requires to publish the source code, other
provisions in the license apply.

> What does (2) really mean?  How can one "arrange to deprive
> [oneself] of the benefit of the patent license" -- by goading the
> licensor into suing you? :)

This is quite bizarre.  It might mean that you could implement a
workaround for the patent, or distribute it in a jurisdiction where
the patent does not apply or something like that.  What does the
rationale say about this?

>>   13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
>
>>   Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
>> permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
>> under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
>> combined work, and to convey the resulting work.  The terms of this
>> License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
>> but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
>> section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
>> combination as such.
>
> Hmm, so maybe when I license my software with an extra restriction, this is
> what I'll restrict. ;)

But version 3 doesn't allow this, does it?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Florian Weimer]

* Francesco Poli:

>> Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis.  We already have to,
>> because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved are
>> very common.
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment that
> GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance guarantee.
> Some restrictions that can be legally added to a GPLv3'd work will make
> the work non-free, so we have to check on a case-by-case basis...  :-(

But in reality, this is nothing new.  People slap the GPLv2 on
combined works which they cannot legally license this way.  There have
been quite a few surprises.  I don't think this change is a major
issue for us, we just have to be careful as ever.

To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
the SHING GPL.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Ben Finney]

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If the choice is between continuing to discuss without that acronym
> spelled out in full every message, or eliding it as understood, I
> far prefer the latter.

Meh. This twisted statement contains at least one error. The intent is
"discussion without spelling out the explanation in full all the time
is far preferable".

-- 
 \  "My interest is in the future, as I am going to spend the rest |
  `\   of my life there."  -- Charles F. Kettering |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Steve Langasek wrote:

WTF, seriously?  Reading this makes me want to go write some new code,
license it under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional restriction has no
legal force.

Not non-free, just incredibly goofy; I understand the motivation, I just
don't see how anyone would actually think this would address the problem.


It certainly addresses the problem. Let's look at the two possibilities:

Before:
  GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
  Restriction: you can't do X

Result - conflict and confusion; non-redistributable code

After:
  GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X
  GPL: If I say you can't do X, you can ignore me
  Restriction: you can't do X

Result - the license is consistent, although it has one part which 
nullifies another part. This is similar to clauses of the form "The 
previous part of this clause does not apply if you are wearing blue 
underwear".


If you (in your example) license under GPLv3 + restriction, then by 
picking GPLv3 you are giving me, the recipient of the code, permission 
to remove the restriction. If you didn't want to give me that 
permission, you shouldn't have used GPLv3 - just as if you didn't want 
to give me permission to link my code with the Affero GPL (to take one 
example of many), you shouldn't have used GPLv3.


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Gervase Markham]

Sean Kellogg wrote:
Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient 
disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."  There are laws, 
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not 
certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the advice is given 
in. 


Are you familiar enough with the laws of Italy (where Francesco appears 
to reside) to state that there are such laws which apply to him?


There is no exception provided by adding disclaimers, there is only the 
question of whether or not legal advice was given.


How are you defining "legal advice"? If it is "advice on matters which 
may relate to the law", then that could be taken to be anything. It's a 
definition so broad as to be useless.


This, of course, is patently false.  Anyone can provide legal advice...  
people do it all the time ("gee Bob, you should claim X on your taxes", 
or "the judge will reduce your ticket if you show up in court", etc).  You 
don't have to be a lawyer to provide it, you just need to be a lawyer to do 
so legally in those jursidictions that require certification.  


So if the speaker in your "Bob" example is in one of these 
jurisdictions, saying what he said is technically illegal? Do you not 
think that this makes the law an ass?


Of course, the 
law is an awfully grey space, so there's lots of flexibility, and for the 
most part lay-persons can get away with providing legal advice to their 
friends because the relationship is clear.  Here, on an email list 
entitled "debian-legal" I think one might have a reasonable expectation that 
actual lawyers were providing advice.


Why? I've never seen that happen (although I've only been on the list 
for a year or two). It's certainly not a regular occurrence.


Does this line of argument mean that when I watch "Boston Legal", and 
decide to follow the advice some of those (fictional) lawyers gave their 
clients, I can sue the program when it all goes wrong, because the word 
"Legal" in the name gave me a reasonable expectation that they were 
providing "legal advice"?


Gerv


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Ben Finney]

Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a
> sufficient disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."
> There are laws, criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice
> by those who not certified by the Bar Association within the
> jurisdiction the advice is given in.  There is no exception provided
> by adding disclaimers, there is only the question of whether or not
> legal advice was given.

There are also conventions in normal discourse, and "IANAL", expanded
to "I am not a lawyer", is commonly understood to be shorthand for
"... and therefore am not qualified to give legal advice; if you want
legal advice, ask a lawyer, which I, as previously explained, am not".

If the choice is between continuing to discuss without that acronym
spelled out in full every message, or eliding it as understood, I
far prefer the latter.

-- 
 \ "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands |
  `\  it."  -- Albert Einstein |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Sean Kellogg]

On Saturday 30 June 2007 09:56:44 am Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Francesco is not a lawyer,
>
> I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand why you seem to have
> such fun in pointing fingers at other people and repeating "he/she's not
> a lawyer!", "he/she's not a Debian developer!"...

Francesco...  as I've said on this list before, "IANAL" is not a sufficient 
disclaimer.  Nor is saying "this is not legal advice."  There are laws, 
criminal laws, against the providing of legal advice by those who not 
certified by the Bar Association within the jurisdiction the advice is given 
in.  There is no exception provided by adding disclaimers, there is only the 
question of whether or not legal advice was given.

You can raise questions as to whether something is, or is not, legal advice.  
But definitive statements like "I wish it could, but I am afraid it 
cannot..." in response to a question about the meaning of a particular term 
in a legal document is arguably legal advice.  

> > that isn't legal advice,
>
> Since I explicitly noted that IANAL, it goes without saying that I
> cannot give legal advice.

This, of course, is patently false.  Anyone can provide legal advice...  
people do it all the time ("gee Bob, you should claim X on your taxes", 
or "the judge will reduce your ticket if you show up in court", etc).  You 
don't have to be a lawyer to provide it, you just need to be a lawyer to do 
so legally in those jursidictions that require certification.  Of course, the 
law is an awfully grey space, so there's lots of flexibility, and for the 
most part lay-persons can get away with providing legal advice to their 
friends because the relationship is clear.  Here, on an email list 
entitled "debian-legal" I think one might have a reasonable expectation that 
actual lawyers were providing advice.

To that end, Mr. Towns' continued reminders that you are not, in fact, a 
lawyer, is helpful to those who may be mistaken that you are, as it would 
appear, providing legal advice.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Joe Smith]

"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Here I'm confused again.  What does making the source code available have 
to
do with patents?  Isn't it the case that the license already requires 
source

code availability?  How does making the source code available help the
patent problem?


First of all the requirement is for *public* availability (even in the case 
of private distribution), which is not a requirement of the rest of the 
licence.


I think it is the ffmpeg situation. They distribute code (which allegedy 
cannot violate a patent),
and the end users can download and compile it. I guess the FSF feels that 
end users are unlikly to be
sued for this, although AIUI, under US law they can be sued for that. This 
only seems to benefit
those people who the patent does not apply, such as people in contries that 
do not allow software patents.




Is the meaning here that the Corresponding Source is only "available" if
there are no patents applying to it?  That's the only sensible meaning I 
can

extract, but the license seems to go about saying this in a rather obtuse
way.

What does (2) really mean?  How can one "arrange to deprive [oneself] of 
the
benefit of the patent license" -- by goading the licensor into suing you? 
:)
Otherwise, even if the patent license agreement is terminated on paper, 
how

do you force the patent holder to still treat everyone "fairly"?


Well, in many cases patent licences require continuing royalty payments. I'm 
pretty
sure that if you start refusing to pay, but continue to use the patent, you 
will be sued.


I agree that in the case of a licence involving a flat payment for perpetual 
use, this clause
does not do much to level the playing feild, as the patent holder is 
unlikely to sue somebody
who has made all applicable payments, even if they have nominally terminated 
the contract.




But, ok; in spite of the above doubts, they've done a pretty good job of
closing the patent loophole, and done so in a way that I think is DFSG-ok.






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> >   3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> >   When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> > circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> > circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
> > respect to the covered work,

> This clause is troublesome, as it seems to be overreaching.  For
> instance, it could be interpreted as covering legal powers to forbid
> "computer crimes" such as unauthorized intrusion into computer systems.

"you cannot forbid circumvention of technological measures" is not the same
thing as "you cannot seek recourse under the law if the user commits a crime
against you using the work".

> E.g.: suppose that the covered work is a vulnerability scanner, or
> password cracker, or anyway a tool that could be used (among other
> things) to break into other people's computers.  Using that tool in this
> manner is exercising a right "under this License" and is a circumvention
> of appropriate technological measures set to protect a computer system
> or network from unauthorized access.  Gaining unauthorized access to a
> protected computer system or network is forbidden by law in several
> jurisdictions; do I waive such a legal protection, when I convey the
> covered work?

No, because that's criminal trespass, which is distinct from the
"circumvention of technological measures" which is being waived.

> [...]
> >   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> [...]
> > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> > Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> > interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
> > work need not make them do so.

> Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2.

No, it's different from GPLv2 2c only in that it's extended to "interactive
user interfaces" instead of just programs that "read commands interactively
when run".

> What is more awkward is that it seems that when a non-interactive work is
> modified so that it becomes an interactive work, the modifier is
> *compelled* to implement these features in *any* newly created interactive
> interface.

Welcome to 1991.

> This clause is very close to fail DFSG#3.
> Hence, this is possibly a Freeness issue.

It's absurd to say that this requirement is permissible in the GPLv2 but not
in the GPLv3.

> This clause could be not enough to protect recipients from patent
> lawsuits, and thus make the work fail several DFSG, when there are
> actively enforced patents infringed by the work.

Um, no.  The DFSG does not require indemnification against third-party
claims; an actively-enforced patent may require us to *not distribute the
work at all*, but that's not a question of DFSG-freeness of the work.

> [...]
> >   A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
> > the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
> > conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
> > specifically granted under this License.  You may not convey a covered
> > work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
> > in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
> > to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
> > the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
> > parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
> > patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
> > conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
> > for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
> > contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
> > or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

> This clause fails to protect recipients from patent lawsuits, whenever
> the related "discriminatory" patent license was granted, or the related
> nasty arrangement was in place, prior to 28 March 2007.  In those cases,
> the work fails several DFSG

Um, no, it doesn't.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:10:46 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Francesco Poli:
[...]
> > I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> > additional requirements to be added.  It's *against* the spirit of
> > the GPLv2 (where the FSF promised that new versions would "be
> > similar in spirit to the present version", see GPLv2, section 9.)
> > and greatly weakens the copyleft.
> 
> But the section (b) you have been quoted just spells out what we have
> been assuming and practicing all the time: the MIT and 3-clause BSD
> licenses, which require the preservation of legal notices and credits,
> are compatible with the GPL, even though they are technically further
> restrictions.

If I were sure it does this and only this, then I would be more than
happy it is explicitly permitted.
The problem, as I explained, is that I am afraid that broader
interpretations are possible...

> 
> > Especially, clause 7b is a permission to add a possibly non-free
> > requirement.  Actually: what exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"?
> 
> Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis.  We already have to,
> because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved are
> very common.

Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment that
GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance guarantee.
Some restrictions that can be legally added to a GPLv3'd work will make
the work non-free, so we have to check on a case-by-case basis...  :-(

> 
> > What exactly is an "author attribution"?
> 
> Author attribution is a well-known concept in droit d'auteur copyright
> systems, and I think the U.S. code knows about it, too.

OK, maybe "author attribution" is clear enough, but I'm still worried
about the so-called "reasonable legal notices"...

> 
> > These terms are not defined anywhere in the license.  I'm concerned
> > that they could be interpreted in a broad sense and allow people to
> > take a GPLv3'd work and add some sort of invariant long text that
> > nobody will ever be able to remove or modify...  This option could
> > make a work include unmodifiable & unremovable parts and thus fail
> > to fully grant the freedom to modify.
> 
> Yeah, but this is nothing any license can guard against.  People might
> just make an illegal derivative even if this is forbidden by the
> license.

Well, in the case of the GNU GPL v3, it can be argued that the license
does *not* forbid this!  And it could even be the correct interpretation
of the license!

>  Either way, we are free to reject to distribute it.
> 
> Version 3 certainly implements a weaker copyleft than version 2

That's exactly what I was complaining about!

> (possibly with the exception of patents), but I don't think we should
> worry too much about that.  Debian is sort of agnostic when it comes
> to the question whether free software licenses should be copyleft or
> not.

I can be agnostic about copyleft, but adopting a license which is almost
twice as long and complicated as the GPLv2 (which, in its turn, is
definitely not a short and simple one!) and getting a weak copyleft
sounds kinda awkward!
When I do not want copyleft I adopt a simple non-copyleft license!

$ wc /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 \
  GPL-v3_text.txt 
   26   225  1499 /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD
  340  2968 17992 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
  676  5644 35068 GPL-v3_text.txt
 1042  8837 54559 total

Imagine this: I adopt an overly complicated license which is about 25
times longer than the 3-clause BSD, and still my code can be
proprietarized!  Wow!  :-(

> 
> >>   13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
> 
> My concern is that the "you may sell yourself into slavery" clause
> earlier in the license will encourage people to adopt the AGPL.
> Certainly not a good development.

Indeed.


P.S.: please do not Cc: me, as long as you reply to debian-legal:
  I didn't ask you to do so; thanks


-- 
 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



pgpGlHoYGKeKy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>   A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
> standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
> interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
> is widely used among developers working in that language.

>   The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
> than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
> packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
> Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
> Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
> implementation is available to the public in source code form.  A
> "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
> (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
> (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
> produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

Um.  Raise your hand if you're actually able to parse what this says?

>   The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
> the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
> work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
> control those activities.  However, it does not include the work's
> System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
> programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
> which are not part of the work.  For example, Corresponding Source
> includes interface definition files associated with source files for
> the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
> linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
> such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
> subprograms and other parts of the work.

I don't think this clause says anything non-free (indeed, it seems to be
weaker than the existing clause in GPLv2), but wow, if it isn't hard to
read.  I guess there's something in the GPLv3 to please everyone, including
lawyers. >:)

>   A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
> tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
> or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
> into a dwelling.  In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
> doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage.  For a particular
> product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
> typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
> of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
> actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product.  A product
> is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
> commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
> the only significant mode of use of the product.

>   "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
> procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
> and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
> a modified version of its Corresponding Source.  The information must
> suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
> code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
> modification has been made.

>   If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
> specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
> part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
> User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
> fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
> Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
> by the Installation Information.  But this requirement does not apply
> if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
> modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
> been installed in ROM).

>   The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
> requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
> for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
> the User Product in which it has been modified or installed.  Access to a
> network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
> adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
> protocols for communication across the network.

>   Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
> in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
> documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
> source code form), and must require no special password or key for
> unpacking, reading or copying.

Huh, nicely done.  I don't see any reason

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Thomas Dickey wrote:
> sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
> and depending on the context will contradict themselves.

Well, if clients contradict each other the lawyer has no choice
but to play along...

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
  Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Thomas Dickey]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has to say
> about this clause and its interpretation.

sadly enough, _real_ lawyers represent their client,
and depending on the context will contradict themselves.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Florian Weimer]

* Francesco Poli:

>> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
>> author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
>> Notices displayed by works containing it; or
>
> I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> additional requirements to be added.  It's *against* the spirit of the
> GPLv2 (where the FSF promised that new versions would "be similar in
> spirit to the present version", see GPLv2, section 9.) and greatly
> weakens the copyleft.

But the section (b) you have been quoted just spells out what we have
been assuming and practicing all the time: the MIT and 3-clause BSD
licenses, which require the preservation of legal notices and credits,
are compatible with the GPL, even though they are technically further
restrictions.

> Especially, clause 7b is a permission to add a possibly non-free
> requirement.  Actually: what exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"?

Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis.  We already have to,
because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved are
very common.

> What exactly is an "author attribution"?

Author attribution is a well-known concept in droit d'auteur copyright
systems, and I think the U.S. code knows about it, too.

> These terms are not defined anywhere in the license.  I'm concerned
> that they could be interpreted in a broad sense and allow people to
> take a GPLv3'd work and add some sort of invariant long text that
> nobody will ever be able to remove or modify...  This option could
> make a work include unmodifiable & unremovable parts and thus fail
> to fully grant the freedom to modify.

Yeah, but this is nothing any license can guard against.  People might
just make an illegal derivative even if this is forbidden by the
license.  Either way, we are free to reject to distribute it.

Version 3 certainly implements a weaker copyleft than version 2
(possibly with the exception of patents), but I don't think we should
worry too much about that.  Debian is sort of agnostic when it comes
to the question whether free software licenses should be copyleft or
not.

>>   13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

My concern is that the "you may sell yourself into slavery" clause
earlier in the license will encourage people to adopt the AGPL.
Certainly not a good development.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:31:29 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote:

[...]
> Francesco is not a lawyer,

I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."): I cannot understand why you seem to have
such fun in pointing fingers at other people and repeating "he/she's not
a lawyer!", "he/she's not a Debian developer!"...

> that isn't legal advice,

Since I explicitly noted that IANAL, it goes without saying that I
cannot give legal advice.

> it's almost
> certainly not based on legal advice,

I would have said so, if I had the opportunity to get legal advice on
the matter.

> and those sorts of questions
> should be discussed with either the copyright holder of the work you
> want to modify or a lawyer if you want an answer you can actually use.
> 
> Personally, I think you'll have plenty of luck avoiding the
> requirement if you talk to upstream authors about it

Great!  Because free software is about asking every copyright holder of
each package for permission to do anything!:-(

> (with the
> possible exception of the FSF)

So, at the end of the day, you too think that the intended meaning of
the clause can be the one I am afraid it is...   :-?

> who can give you permission in addition
> to the GPL, and not much luck if you talk to lawyers about reading it
> more liberally in general.
> 
> But YMMV and more importantly your lawyer's mileage may vary.

Well, it would be interesting to hear what a real lawyer has to say
about this clause and its interpretation.

Especially considering that works released under the terms of GNU GPL v3
are already entering Debian: see bug #431165...


Big disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, ATATIAAWBI (According To Anthony
 Towns, I Am Always Wrong Because IANADD/IANAL), ...


BTW, are *you* a lawyer?
Is *your* reply legal advice?
Or is it *based* on legal advice?


-- 
 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


pgpodnxY2jZBG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >   3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> > [...]
> > Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> > DFSG#1.
> 
> It could, but I don't think this is one we can test in many cases.
> 
> If GPLv3 does turn out to have bizarre interactions with Computer
> Misuse law, then either FSF will amend (I hope) or GPLv3 will surely
> be rejected en masse.  Until then, I'm willing to assume it does what
> was intended and not hold it as a problem following the DFSG.

So, IIUC, you feel that this interpretation is too far fetched, and the
only interpretation that could hold up in court is the intended one:
forbidding use of DMCA/EUCD/... to take away freedoms granted by the
license.
And this clause, interpreted as intended, is a DFSG-free restriction.

Mmmh, maybe you are right.  Maybe my concerns about this clause are bit
exaggerated...


> 
> > >   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. [...]
> > > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has
> > > interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal
> > > Notices, your work need not make them do so.
> > [...]
> > What is more awkward
> > is that it seems that when a non-interactive work is modified so
> > that it becomes an interactive work, the modifier is *compelled* to
> > implement these features in *any* newly created interactive
> > interface.
> 
> Are you sure?

I am not sure, but anyway, who can really be sure about anything?!?

> If the work has no interactive user interfaces, neither
> of the above 'if' parts seem true already, so adding the first such
> interface lets its author make both parts true simultaneously by
> adding an interface which does not display the notices, if they so
> wish.

The scenario I am mainly worried about is the following.

The work A is published under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
A has *no* interactive interfaces, because it's not an interactive work.
I receive work A and want to create a modified work based on A.
The modified work is named B and has one, newly implemented, interactive
interface.  Hence, work B is an interactive work.
I want to distribute work B in source form.

In this scenario, I have to comply with Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3.
Work B is the "work based on the Program" referred to in the first
sentence of Section 5:

|   You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
| produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
| terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
| conditions:

On the other hand, work A is the "Program".
Is that right?  I cannot see any other reasonable interpretation.

Hence, I read clause 5d as:

|  d) If the work [= work B] has interactive user interfaces [yes, it
|  has one], each must display Appropriate Legal Notices [I must
|  implement the feature in the newly created interactive interface];
|  however, if the Program [= work A] has interactive interfaces [no,
|  it has none] that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work
|  need not make them do so [this does not apply, since the condition is
|  false].

This means that I'm compelled to implement the feature in the newly
created interactive interface, even if I don't want to.


> 
> > >   7. Additional Terms.
> > [...]
> > Especially, clause 7b is a permission to add a possibly non-free
> > requirement.  Actually: what exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"?
> > What exactly is an "author attribution"?  These terms are not
> > defined anywhere in the license. [...]
> 
> I share these reservations.  A problem to watch for in GPLv3 packages.

Hooray!  Another check-on-case-by-case-basis license!  :-(

> 
> > >   13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
> > [...]
> > Being compatible with an unreleased (and probably non-free) license
> > destroys the copyleft mechanism of the GPLv3.
> 
> Not destruction, but it means GPLv3 is only a weak copyleft IMO.

Yes, I should have written "greatly weakens", I was dramatizing a bit
too much...

> It
> is amazing that GPLv3 may give a minor exit route from free software
> to adware.  The only way to avoid it is for FSF to never release
> GAGPL, but how likely is FSF to change course now?

I don't count on it to happen...  :-(
The FSF seems to not listen to Free Software supporters anymore.  Or, at
least, it seems to listen to the wrong ones...

> They've
> marginalised several good web app authors from the consultations by
> putting it in a bad Web-2.Null interface, so I'm fearful it's a done
> deal.



Thanks for replying to my comments.

-- 
 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 27

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:16:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:
> > Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> > Francesco Poli worries:
> > > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive
> > > interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that when a
> > > non-interactive work is modified so that it becomes an interactive
> > > work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement these features in
> > > *any* newly created interactive interface.
> > Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
> I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(

Francesco is not a lawyer, that isn't legal advice, it's almost
certainly not based on legal advice, and those sorts of questions should
be discussed with either the copyright holder of the work you want to
modify or a lawyer if you want an answer you can actually use.

Personally, I think you'll have plenty of luck avoiding the requirement
if you talk to upstream authors about it (with the possible exception of
the FSF) who can give you permission in addition to the GPL, and not much
luck if you talk to lawyers about reading it more liberally in general.

But YMMV and more importantly your lawyer's mileage may vary.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Replies from linux.* (was: Final text of GPL v3)

[MJ Ray]

[cc'd to curiosa because I'm not sure where else it should go and
replies there and cc'd to me, not to -legal, please]

Iain Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (First: apologies. This message probably won't thread properly. This is
> because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the Usenet gateway
> is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the list email
> address. The trouble is my email client has no message to reply to,
> because it's not my NNTP client.)

The gateway is two way, but you need to register with Marco d'Itri's
linux-gate service at
http://lists.bofh.it/listinfo/linux-gate
- you should have been told that by your newsserver, IIRC.

Alternatively, save the message to a file, strip the X-Original- parts
from some headers and delete the original Date, References and Message-Id.
With sed, I think it's something like this:

#!/bin/sed -f
1i\
>From news  Thu Mar 22 12:59:12 2007
/^\(Date\|References\|Message-Id\)/I,/^\([A-Z]\|$\)/d
/^X-Original-/s///

Then open that as a mailbox and you should be able to reply properly.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[MJ Ray]

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >   3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
> [...]
> Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
> DFSG#1.

It could, but I don't think this is one we can test in many cases.

If GPLv3 does turn out to have bizarre interactions with Computer Misuse
law, then either FSF will amend (I hope) or GPLv3 will surely be rejected
en masse.  Until then, I'm willing to assume it does what was intended
and not hold it as a problem following the DFSG.

> >   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. [...]
> > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> > Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> > interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
> > work need not make them do so.
> [...]
> What is more awkward
> is that it seems that when a non-interactive work is modified so that it
> becomes an interactive work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement
> these features in *any* newly created interactive interface.

Are you sure?  If the work has no interactive user interfaces, neither
of the above 'if' parts seem true already, so adding the first such
interface lets its author make both parts true simultaneously by adding an
interface which does not display the notices, if they so wish.

> >   7. Additional Terms.
> [...]
> Especially, clause 7b is a permission to add a possibly non-free
> requirement.  Actually: what exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"?
> What exactly is an "author attribution"?  These terms are not defined
> anywhere in the license. [...]

I share these reservations.  A problem to watch for in GPLv3 packages.

> >   13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
> [...]
> Being compatible with an unreleased (and probably non-free) license
> destroys the copyleft mechanism of the GPLv3.

Not destruction, but it means GPLv3 is only a weak copyleft IMO.  It is
amazing that GPLv3 may give a minor exit route from free software to
adware.  The only way to avoid it is for FSF to never release GAGPL, but
how likely is FSF to change course now?  They've marginalised several
good web app authors from the consultations by putting it in a bad
Web-2.Null interface, so I'm fearful it's a done deal.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote:

[...]
> Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
> >   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
> [...]
> > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has
> > interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal
> > Notices, your work need not make them do so.
> 
> Francesco Poli worries:
> > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive
> > interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that when a
> > non-interactive work is modified so that it becomes an interactive
> > work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement these features in
> > *any* newly created interactive interface.
> Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?

I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot...  :-(

> I'm
> concentrating on the bit from "however". Suppose: I receive a program
> under the GPL 3. I create a new interface for the program, without the
> legal notices.

If the work, as you received it, has *no* interactive interfaces, the
exception granted with the "however" sentence does *not* apply.
As a consequence, *any* interactive interface you add to a
non-interactive work *must* display Appropriate Legal Notices.

> 
> The license says that, when distributing my modified version, I "need
> not make" interfaces of "the Program" that don't display a legal
> notice display a legal notice. I think, then, to be exempt from the
> requirement to make user interfaces display legal notices, my modified
> version of the Program would have to count as just "the Program".
> 
> Consider that "The Program" is defined as:
> >  "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
> > License. 
> When I convey a modified source version, 5c) requires the entire
> modified work be licensed under the GPL. This then means that when you
> convey a modified "the Program", the new bits are licensed, and so the
> whole modified program becomes just "the Program". I do not need to
> add legal notices to interfaces of "the Program" that lack then.

Unfortunately, I don't think this interpretation is correct.
In the context of section 5 (and of other sections too), the "Program"
refers to the GPLv3'd work, as you received it, while the "work [based
on the Program]" is the modified version of the work that you produced
by modifying the Program.

Let me quote the relevant part of section 5:

|   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
| 
|   You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
| produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
| terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these
| conditions:
[...]


> 
> I'm curious how far fetched people think this is.
> 
> If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
> would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you
> keep, but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
> interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.

I have tried to convince the FSF to drop clause 5d or, at least, to
relax it so that it only required what you have just said:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id=709
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20gplv3-draft-1%20%%3E&id=1659
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20gplv3-draft-1%20%%3E&id=2764
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id=3214

but, unfortunately, I failed.   :-(


-- 
 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


pgpHFQH2xeuLa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Iain Nicol]

(First: apologies. This message probably won't thread properly. This is
because I reading this list via Usenet, but because the Usenet gateway
is, I presume, one-way gateway, I have to reply via the list email
address. The trouble is my email client has no message to reply to,
because it's not my NNTP client.)

Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3:
>   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
[...]
> d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
> work need not make them do so.

Francesco Poli worries:
> It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive
> interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that when a
> non-interactive work is modified so that it becomes an interactive
> work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement these features in *any*
> newly created interactive interface.
Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally? I'm concentrating
on the bit from "however". Suppose: I receive a program under the GPL 3.
I create a new interface for the program, without the legal notices.

The license says that, when distributing my modified version, I "need
not make" interfaces of "the Program" that don't display a legal notice
display a legal notice. I think, then, to be exempt from the requirement
to make user interfaces display legal notices, my modified version of
the Program would have to count as just "the Program".

Consider that "The Program" is defined as:
>  "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
> License. 
When I convey a modified source version, 5c) requires the entire
modified work be licensed under the GPL. This then means that when you
convey a modified "the Program", the new bits are licensed, and so the
whole modified program becomes just "the Program". I do not need to add
legal notices to interfaces of "the Program" that lack then.

I'm curious how far fetched people think this is.

If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section
would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you keep,
but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user
interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not.


-- 
Iain Nicol


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:47:59 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:

[...]
> The full final text of the GNU GPL v3 is quoted below for reference.

My comments follow.

The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD.


[...]
>   3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
[...]
>   When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
> circumvention of technological measures to the extent such
> circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with
> respect to the covered work,

This clause is troublesome, as it seems to be overreaching.  For
instance, it could be interpreted as covering legal powers to forbid
"computer crimes" such as unauthorized intrusion into computer systems.

E.g.: suppose that the covered work is a vulnerability scanner, or
password cracker, or anyway a tool that could be used (among other
things) to break into other people's computers.  Using that tool in this
manner is exercising a right "under this License" and is a circumvention
of appropriate technological measures set to protect a computer system
or network from unauthorized access.  Gaining unauthorized access to a
protected computer system or network is forbidden by law in several
jurisdictions; do I waive such a legal protection, when I convey the
covered work?

Waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
DFSG#1.
Hence, this is possibly a Freeness issue.


[...]
>   5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
[...]
> d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
> Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
> interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
> work need not make them do so.

Clause 5d is definitely worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2.

It's an inconvenience and border-line with respect to Freeness. 
Actually this clause restricts how I can modify what an interactive
program does when run.  It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in
*any* interactive interface of my modified work.  It's very close to
place an unacceptable restriction on modification.  What is more awkward
is that it seems that when a non-interactive work is modified so that it
becomes an interactive work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement
these features in *any* newly created interactive interface.

This clause is very close to fail DFSG#3.
Hence, this is possibly a Freeness issue.


[...]
>   7. Additional Terms.
[...]
>   Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material
> you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright
> holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with
> terms:
[...]
> b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
> author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
> Notices displayed by works containing it; or

I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
additional requirements to be added.  It's *against* the spirit of the
GPLv2 (where the FSF promised that new versions would "be similar in
spirit to the present version", see GPLv2, section 9.) and greatly
weakens the copyleft.

Especially, clause 7b is a permission to add a possibly non-free
requirement.  Actually: what exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"? 
What exactly is an "author attribution"?  These terms are not defined
anywhere in the license.  I'm concerned that they could be interpreted
in a broad sense and allow people to take a GPLv3'd work and add some
sort of invariant long text that nobody will ever be able to remove or
modify...  This option could make a work include unmodifiable &
unremovable parts and thus fail to fully grant the freedom to modify.

This option could make the work fail DFSG#3, when exercised.
It's not a Freeness issue, per se, but a great loss, since
GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance guarantee...


[...]
>   11. Patents.
[...]
>   If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
> and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
> to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
> publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
> then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
> available,

I still fail to understand how (1) can be seen as a specific form of
shielding downstream recipients.  If I am a downstream recipient who
does not have a patent license, what protection (against patent
infringement lawsuits) would I get from the existence of a network
server which makes source available to the public?

I'm puzzled.

This clause could be not enough to protect recipients from patent
lawsuits, and thus make the work fail several DFSG, when there are
actively enforced patents infringed by the work.
It's not a Freeness issue, unless and until there are actively enforced
patents infringed by the work.


[...]
>   A patent license is "discriminatory" if it d

Final text of GPL v3

[Francesco Poli]

Hi all,
the final text of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 29 June 2007 by
the FSF.
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

The main substantial changes with respect to the "Last Call Draft"
(discussed in the thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00016.html) are in
sections 8 and 13.
As far as section 13 is concerned, now the compatibility with the yet
unreleased GNU AGPL v3 is complete (for both linking and combining),
even though not automatically extended to later versions of the GNU
AGPL.

The full final text of the GNU GPL v3 is quoted below for reference.




GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   Version 3, 29 June 2007

 Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

  The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

  The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works.  By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users.  We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors.  You can apply it to
your programs, too.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.  Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

  Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

  For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software.  For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

  Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so.  This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software.  The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable.  Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products.  If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

  Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary.  To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

   TERMS AND CONDITIONS

  0. Definitions.

  "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

  "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.
 
  "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License.  Each licensee is addressed as "you".  "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

  To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy.  The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

  A "covered work" means either t