Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:05:05 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the > > Preample: > > > > "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for > > software and other kinds of works." > > Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part: > | 0. This License applies to any program or other work [...] > | ^ > | The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work [...] > | ^^^ > > I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to > non-program works in mind. It was certainly designed *primarily* for > programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of > authorship. > > At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many > times... True, but it does seem that that the [draft] GPLv3 features this a bit more prominently (first line in the preamble, more clear in the definitions, some of the non-source conveying options are less ambiguous now with non-program works, etc). Anyway, not that it particularly matters——GPLv2 in practice already works pretty well for almost all non-program works——it was mostly just an interesting observation. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote: [...] > > I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any > > work of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they > > expressed this disagreement long before they started promoting other > > licenses designed for non-program works. > > Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the > Preample: > > "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for > software and other kinds of works." Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part: | 0. This License applies to any program or other work [...] | ^ | The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work [...] | ^^^ I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to non-program works in mind. It was certainly designed *primarily* for programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of authorship. At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many times... -- 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 pgpwJE40BM8Eq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship > > (not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more > > neutral term than "the Program". Something like "the Work" would > > avoid misleading many many people into thinking that the GPL can > > only be applied to computer programs. > [...] > I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any work > of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they expressed > this disagreement long before they started promoting other licenses > designed for non-program works. Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the Preample: "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works." And, the license is is *very* generic in it's definitions of "Program" and "Source", but still, they used the works "Program" and "Source". And they apparently believe that documentation is not part of "other kinds of works", hence the GFDL[1]. [1] Which IMO is mostly benign, but still pointless. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
Thanks again, Francesco, for a thorough coverage of this latest GPLv3 draft. Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship > (not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more > neutral term than "the Program". Something like "the Work" would > avoid misleading many many people into thinking that the GPL can > only be applied to computer programs. My understanding of FSF's position for many years is that the GPL was designed only for computer programs. They agree that it *can* be applied to non-program works of authorship, and that the result is free software, but I think it's untrue to say it was *designed* to be applicable that way. I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any work of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they expressed this disagreement long before they started promoting other licenses designed for non-program works. If you wish to express this argument, I think you'll need to base it on something other than "the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship". -- \ "The generation of random numbers is too important to be left | `\ to chance." -- Robert R. Coveyou | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [long] Last call draft of GPL v3
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, a new "Last Call Draft" of the GNU GPL v3 has been published on 31 May 2007 by the FSF. The full text of this fourth draft can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html My comments on the draft follow. I will send them to the FSF public consultation system RSN (since they are accepting comments for only 30 days, starting on 31 May). The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. [snip] Bad: too restrictive Clause 5d is now simpler and clearer than in the previous drafts: as a consequences, its issues are more apparent! ;-) This clause is worse than the corresponding clause 2c in GPLv2... :-( [snip] I would like to see clause 5d dropped entirely. Or, at least, it could be modified so that it only applies to cases where the original Program is also interactive. Something like: | d) If the Program has interactive user interfaces which display | Appropriate Legal Notices, this feature must be preserved in each | interactive interface that is also present in the work. It is one thing to require preservation of the Appropriate legal notices feature in existing interactive user interfaces. It is entirely different to compel users to include such a feature in any newly created interactive interfaces. This is far worse than the equivalent clause in GPL v2. People WILL ignore this requirement, and assume it merely mandates preservation of the feature in existing interfaces. This is a *critical* problem with the license IMHO. Further there is no exception for interactive user interfaces where it is *impossible* to meet the definition of "displays 'Appropriate Legal Notices'". Cases like an audio-only interactive interface could not possibly include "a convenient and prominently *visible* feature", and might not be able to tell "the user [..] how to view a copy of this License". It might not be possible to tell the user how to view the licence. Especially if the device has no means of visual output, in which case there is no way to "view" the licence. The program could perhaps give instructions on how to request to have the licence read to them, but that is not what is required. Kills copyleft: are these the cousins of GFDL's Invariant Sections? What exactly is a "reasonable legal notice"? What exactly is an "author attribution"? It seems that 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. I would rather avoid introducing such options in the GPLv3! ===> this option could make the work fail DFSG#3, when exercised Hmm... reasonable legal notice will at least include a copyright statement. Some further guidence could be useful. Can a mandate to include an entire licence (talking abiout one of the short licences, like BSD, Expat, etc. [obviously a modified version of the licence, with a mandate to include the licence text in the Appropriate Legal Notice]) be considered a resonable notice? It almost seems reasonable, but on the other hand it is somewhat long, which may be unreasonable, especially in certain types of interactive interfaces. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
