New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
Nathanael Nerode
There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the GPL v.3.
(They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.)
And there's a new draft of the LGPL. (I haven't looked carefully at it.)
You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but if there are
any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring them up here as well so
we can try to hash out whether they really are.
Clause 7(b).4 is much, much improved. If used, it might still be a freeness issue
because of the "same network session" requirement. If "same network session" means
"same session at the computer" if should be fine and free. If it means "same TCP/IP
connection"... I'm not sure. Anyone else have thoughts?
The "DRM" clause (3) seems to be fixed, and the new version actually looks like a good
model clause to me. I'm not 100% sure about the "encryption keys"
business in clause 1, though it looks pretty good; the new version is certainly an
improvement over the first draft, but perhaps people can think of some reasonable
use case which this clearly prohibits (I can't).
It's also unclear to me what the status of dual-licensing is in the new draft:
I believe it's meant to be dealt with as "additional permissions", but I'm not sure
whether that actually works. (Some of those permissions might be conditional on not
exercising some of the GPL freedoms, and I don't know how that would work.)
The draft doesn't give any direct concessions to the existence of dual-licensing,
but then neither did any previous version of the GPL....
There are so many wording changes that something new might have popped up, but I didn't
spot anything. :-)
Oh -- note if you look at the draft that the clauses in brackets (13 and 15) are
scheduled for removal; at least I assume they are since that's what it meant during
the first draft. This confused me on the first draft; I dunno why they're in
there at all.
--
Nathanael Nerode <ner...@fastmail.fm>
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Joe Smith
"Nathanael Nerode" <ner...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:2006072802...@doctormoo.dyndns.org...
> Just a heads-up.
>
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/
>
> There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft of the
> GPL v.3.
> (They all look like improvements to me, but there's a lot to digest.)
> And there's a new draft of the LGPL. (I haven't looked carefully at it.)
>
> You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but if
> there are
> any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring them up here as
> well so
> we can try to hash out whether they really are.
Note that the fact that that DFSG 10 may make GPLv3 free regardless of other
violations, because "GPL" is used without version information.
On to the other areas. I will be pointing out any potential problems I
notice, even if i do not belive them to actually be a problem.
> 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.
If I understand this, the "system library" exception will only applyto
libraries required to use that
part of the system (windows manager ,kernel, compiler, etc.) or can apply to
libraries ditributed with those
components that implements a "highly used or standard" API if an
implentation of this API exists with viewable source.
(This would allow linking to without distibuting something like a Micosoft
gettext library, if that library was included with the compiler.)
I point this out, not because of freeness issues, (although there might be
some), but only because the orignal took
a fair ammount of effort to understand.
> The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or
>authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified
>versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of
>use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the
>same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD
>player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified
>versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online
>service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
>the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
>distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the
>work normally implies the user already has the key and can read and
>copy it, as in privacy applications where users generate their own
>keys. However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object
>code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does
>not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source.
This is the Tivo clause. I'm not sure if there is any freeness issues to it,
but it is contoversial.
> This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions
>of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
>behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions,
>if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of
>your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using,
>selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in
>compliance with this License.
This indicates that the GPL now does cover running the work,
but only in this one case does it dissallow use.
It also only covers use of a modified version.
This could be possible under the "not a contract" theory,
as copyright law does not private modifications without permission.
>3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.
>
> Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is
>given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works
>the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
This is a another DRM related clause. This should be ok,
as it only dissallows distribution of the source or object code
in a way that would prevent the users from excersizing their rights.
This does not prevent distributing on some form of media with manditory
DRM, as long as a form without DRM is distributed alongside it,
as both would be covered under the same act of conveying, and
the second version allows the users the rights they need.
> c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate
> copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for
> the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may
> convey the modified work under this License, and how to view a
> copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of
> other terms in accord with section 7. Specifically, if the
> interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
> menu, a command to display this information must be prominent in
> the list; otherwise, the modified work must display this
> information at startup. However, if the Program has interactive
> interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your modified
> work need not make them comply.
I cannot belive they managed to make that clause even worse.
I really wish they would drop it.
> 4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they
> cover is a work intended to interact with users through a
> computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of
> the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network
> session; or
This might be considered a freeness problem it would only cover works
that are using this "option".
> Additional requirements are allowed only as stated in subsection 7b.
>If the Program as you received it purports to impose any other
>additional requirement, you may remove that requirement.
Cool!
> You may not propagate or modify the Program except as expressly
>provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
>modify the Program is void. If you violate this License, any
>copyright holder may put you on notice by notifying you of the
>violation, by any reasonable means, provided 60 days have not elapsed
>since the last violation. Having put you on notice, the copyright
>holder may then terminate your license at any time. However, parties
>who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will
>not have their licenses terminated so long as they remain in full
>compliance.
I still am not understanding the point of this sixty day statute of
limitation.
Overall it looks like there are fairly few problematic clauses in this
draft.
Andrew Donnellan
>service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
>the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
>distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the
This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed
or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game
that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under
this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to
the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it
and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this
section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me.
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - ajdl...@jabber.org.au
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Joe Smith
"Andrew Donnellan" <ajdl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1007a32a0607281624j5ef...@mail.gmail.com...
> >versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online
>>service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
>>the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
>>distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the
>
> This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed
> or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game
> that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under
> this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to
> the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it
> and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this
> section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me.
>
But on the other hand, I need the key to run my modified version that runs
on a computer with two moniters. See how this can go both ways?
The only way to prevent cheating in online games is to move virtually all
game logic to the server side. If anything important is running on the
client side,
the client CAN cheat. The alternative is to use something like the TPM.
I really don't think that is a good idea.
Andrew Donnellan
> news:1007a32a0607281624j5ef...@mail.gmail.com...
> > >versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online
> >>service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
> >>the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
> >>distinguish.) A key need not be included in cases where use of the
> >
> > This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed
> > or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game
> > that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under
> > this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to
> > the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it
> > and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this
> > section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me.
> >
>
> But on the other hand, I need the key to run my modified version that runs
> on a computer with two moniters. See how this can go both ways?
Yes.
> The only way to prevent cheating in online games is to move virtually all
> game logic to the server side. If anything important is running on the
> client side,
> the client CAN cheat. The alternative is to use something like the TPM.
Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games
especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a
modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client
still receives data that must not be disclosed to the player, e.g. map
data. A modified client could easily defeat that.
A clause like this needs to allow for 'legitimate' modifications, e.g.
your two screens example, but also allow an online service to block
users that are dishonestly using their modification powers.
> I really don't think that is a good idea.
What isn't? The TPM idea?
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - ajdl...@jabber.org.au
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Joe Smith
> Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games
> especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a
> modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client
> still receives data that must not be disclosed to the player, e.g. map
> data. A modified client could easily defeat that.
Why must data not to be disclosed be sent to the client?
What if the client is nothing but an X11 server. Then it should be
very easy to not send anything that the player must not see.
> A clause like this needs to allow for 'legitimate' modifications, e.g.
> your two screens example, but also allow an online service to block
> users that are dishonestly using their modification powers.
>
>> I really don't think that is a good idea.
>
> What isn't? The TPM idea?
Yeah the TPM.
But this is getting a little offtopic.
The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because there is
no way to block draconian DRM restrictions
while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They
really are the same problem.
Andrew Donnellan
> no way to block draconian DRM restrictions
> while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They
> really are the same problem.
The issue is how the GPLv3 affects a service provider's right to put
restrictions on usage of a service, not copyright licensing. However
it is quite close to DRM and I can see why the FSF is putting this
clause in. Whilst it may be detrimental for some, it does prevent the
use of DRM, and of course there is always the option of using the
GPLv2.
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - ajdl...@jabber.org.au
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Francesco Poli
> Just a heads-up.
>
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/
[...]
> You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) -- but
> if there are any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please bring
> them up here as well so we can try to hash out whether they really
> are.
What follows is my own analysis of GPLv3draft2.
I welcome any comments on my reasonings.
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Discussion Draft 2 of Version 3, 27 July 2006
>
> THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC
> LICENSE.
[...]
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS
>
> 0. Definitions.
>
> In this License, each licensee is addressed as "you," while "the
> Program" refers to any work of authorship licensed under this License.
:::: Style: Program or Work?
Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship
(not only computer programs), I would 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.
> A "modified" work includes, without limitation, versions in which
> material has been translated or added. A work "based on" another work
> means any modified version, formation of which requires permission
> under applicable copyright law. A "covered work" means either the
> unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
:::: Good: clearer definitions
Major improvement: these definitions are much clearer. It's good that
now the definition of "based on" exploits applicable copyright law
whithout trying to rewrite it. This ensures that the license does not
place restrictions on activities that do not require permission under
applicable copyright law.
>
> To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires
> permission under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
> computer, or making modifications that you do not share. Propagation
> includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making
> available to the public, and in some countries other activities as
> well. To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables
> other parties to make or receive copies, excluding sublicensing.
:::: Good: clear definitions
These definitions seem fairly clear.
Again, their linking to copyright law ensures that the license does not
place restrictions on activities that do not require permission under
applicable copyright law.
>
> A party's "essential patent claims" in a work are all patent claims
> that the party can give permission to practice, whether already
> acquired or to be acquired, that would be infringed by making, using,
> or selling the work.
>
> 1. Source Code.
:::: Good: great improvement
This section is greatly improved, especially because the requirement to
include output decryption keys in the Corresponding Source was dropped.
Good.
>
> The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
> for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
> version of a work.
:::: Good: please keep these definitions
I like these definitions. Good to see that they were kept unaltered.
>
> The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit
[...]
> The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
[...]
> 2. Basic Permissions.
>
> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
> copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
> conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
> permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running it
> is covered by this License only if the output, given its content,
> constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of
> "fair use" or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
:::: Good: mentioning of "fair use" is an improvement
Good to see that "fair use" and similar rights are explicitly mentioned.
This is an improvement over GPLv2.
>
> This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions
> of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
> behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions,
> if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of
> your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using,
> selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in
> compliance with this License.
:::: Bad: no permission to use the work for bad guys?
This is a so-called patent retaliation clause. Isn't it a bit
overreaching? It's true that it's triggered only by patent suits that
are related to the Program and that are intended to effectively restrict
other parties' freedoms to use, copy or convey their own works based on
the Program...
But on the other hand, copyright does not cover use, so how can a
copyright holder (assuming he/she does not hold any patent) terminate
the right to *use* the work for a licensee? Is this clause intended to
take away from bad guys (who sue for patent infringement) a right that
they *would* have if they didn't accept the license??
===> possibly a DFSG issue?
>
> Propagation of covered works other than conveying is permitted
> without limitation.
:::: Weird: does this interact with DRM broadcasting?
The rationale for Draft1 (http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale) explains that
this paragraph is intended to distinguish between two subclasses of
propagation: conveying and non-conveying (with the current terminology).
I'm concerned that this clause has unintended consequences, though. I
can propagate a covered work without having to comply with any
conditions, provided that I do not convey it.
Broadcasting an audio file is propagating it, at least in many
jurisdictions (on the basis of the above-stated definition of
"propagation"). Does broadcasting a music file through a DRM-encumbered
channel count as non-conveying propagation? If this is the case, it
seems to be permitted without limitation... Is this intended?
I know that, technically, broadcasting a music file *does* cause the
listeners to receive a copy (one that is forced to be ephemeral when the
streaming is DRM-encumbered, but a copy anyway). But would a court view
things this way?
> Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it
> unnecessary. Conveying is permitted under the conditions stated
> below.
>
> 3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.
:::: Good: improved section
This section seems to be improved with respect to GPLv3draft1,
especially because the no-illegal-privacy-violation clause was dropped.
>
> Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is
> given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works
> the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
:::: Seems good: as long as this allows parallel conveying on
DRM-encumbered *and* unencumbered channels
Conveying through DRM-encumbered media or channels seems to be allowed
as long as final recipients are not denied the freedoms granted by the
license. For instance, conveying through a DRM-*un*encumbered media or
channel in parallel to the DRM-encumbered one, seems to be considered
enough to re-enable the full exercise of the legal rights granted by the
license. Does this clause permit this scenario? If this is the case,
then the clause seems to be OK.
>
> No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
> "protection" measure under section 1201 of Title 17 of the United
> States Code.
:::: Problematic: too specific and possibly untrue
This is really legislation-specific and could become rapidly obsolete
when (hopefully) that specific section of USC changes or is removed.
Moreover, it could be seen as an untrue statement in some cases. What
is or is not an effective technological "protection" measure under a
given section of a law is for the courts to decide, not for the
licensor. In some scenarios, GnuPG may actually be called "part of an
effective technological protection measure".
I suggest dropping this sentence entirely.
> When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal
> power to forbid circumvention of technical measures that include use
> of the covered work,
:::: Bad: possibly overreaching
This seems to be overreaching, since it could be interpreted as covering
legal powers to forbid "computer crimes" such as unauthorized intrusion
into computer systems. For instance, the covered work could be used as
part of a firewall or IDS: circumvention of its technical measures in
order to gain unauthorized access to the protected computer system or
network is forbidden by law in several jurisdictions; do I waive such a
legal protection, when I convey such a covered work?
I suggest dropping the waiver entirely, thus leaving the following
disclaimer only.
===> waiving legal rights can be seen as a fee: this clause could fail
DFSG#1
> and you disclaim any intention to limit operation
> or modification of the work as a means of enforcing the legal rights
> of third parties against the work's users.
>
> 4.[1] Verbatim Copying.
:::: Good: basically unchanged
This is basically the same as in GPLv2 and GPLv3-draft1 (apart from the
references to section 7 and slight wording improvements...). This
section seems OK.
>
> You may copy and convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code
[...]
> 5.[2] Conveying Modified Source Versions.
>
> You may copy and 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 above, provided that you also meet
> all of these conditions:
>
> a) The modified work must carry prominent notices stating that you
> changed the work and the date of any change.
>
> b) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
> License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
> License must apply, unmodified except as permitted by section 7
> below, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of
> how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to
> license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such
> permission if you have separately received it.
:::: Good: disjunctive licensing is explicitly acknowledged
I think that explicitly acknowledging the possibility of dual licensing
(GPLv3 or OTHERLICENSE at the recipient option) is good, as it clarifies
that the GPL does not try to take away permissions that are separately
granted. This is an improvement over GPLv2: good to see that it was
kept in GPLv3draft2.
Section 5 seems OK, so far (apart from the reference to Section 7, more
on this in a later comment...)
>
> c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must
> include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate
> copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for
> the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may
> convey the modified work under this License, and how to view a
> copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of
> other terms in accord with section 7. Specifically, if the
> interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
> menu, a command to display this information must be prominent in
> the list; otherwise, the modified work must display this
> information at startup. However, if the Program has interactive
> interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your modified
> work need not make them comply.
:::: Bad: too restrictive
Clause 5c in GPLv3draft2 is basically unchanged with respect to
GPLv3draft1. It's 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.
I would like to see clause 5c dropped entirely.
===> very close to fail DFSG#3
>
> To the extent that identifiable sections of the modified work, added
[...]
> 6.[3] Conveying Non-Source Forms.
:::: Good: basically unchanged
Section 6 seems to be basically similar to section 3 of GPLv2 (slightly
more explicit and clear in some respects). Good.
>
> You may copy and convey a covered work in object code form under
[...]
> 7. Additional Terms.
>
> You may have received the Program, or parts of it, under terms that
> supplement the terms of this License. These additional terms may
> include additional permissions, as provided in subsection 7a, and
> additional requirements, as provided in subsection 7b. When you
> convey copies of a covered work, unless the work also permits use
> under a previous version of this License, it must list, in one central
> place in the source code, the complete set of additional terms
> governing all or part of the work.
>
> a. Additional Permissions.
[...]
> b. Additional Requirements.
:::: Kills copyleft: this is not in the spirit of GPLv2
I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
additional requirements to be added.
That is *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.
Yes, it enhances license compatibility (as the rationale of GPLv3draft1
explains), but the GPL never was a champion of compatibility. If the
goal were maximizing license compatibility, the best choice would be
adopting the 2-clause BSD license
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html) as the new GPL...
It would be compatible with pretty everything and clearly free, even
though non-copyleft. I'm *not* against non-copyleft free licenses, but
they definitely aren't "similar in spirit to" GPLv2...
I would be happy to see all these "permissions to add restrictions"
entirely dropped from Section 7. In other words, I strongly suggest
dropping subsection 7b entirely.
===> not a Freeness issue, but a great loss, since, if this mechanism is
kept in the final GPLv3 text, GPL-compatibility will no longer be a
DFSG-compliance guarantee... :-(
>
> Additional requirements are terms that further constrain use,
> modification or propagation of covered works. This License affects
> only the procedure for enforcing additional requirements, and does not
> assert that they can be successfully enforced by the copyright holder.
> Only these kinds of additional requirements are allowed by this
> License:
>
> 0) terms that require preservation of specified reasonable legal
> notices or author attributions; or
:::: 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
>
> 1) terms that require that the origin of the material they cover
> not be misrepresented, or that modified versions of that
> material be marked in specific reasonable ways as different
> from the original version; or
>
> 2) warranty or liability disclaimers that differ from the
> disclaimers in this License; or
>
> 3) terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of
> specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that
> certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not
> be used for publicity purposes without express permission,
> other than in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark
> law; or
>
> 4) terms that require, if a modified version of the material they
> cover is a work intended to interact with users through a
> computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of
> the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network
> session; or
:::: Kills copyleft: use of privately modified versions should not be
restricted
The term "users" is never defined in the license and is too vague (see,
for instance,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00805.html). This is a
problem because terms like these ones would require making source
available to an uncertain set of people.
Moreover there are works that are not intended or ready for
distribution. Use of privately modified versions of the work is an
important freedom: it should be granted for network programs too.
I would like to see clause 7b4 dropped entirely, as it allows modified
works to be non-free.
===> this option could make the work fail the DFSG, when exercised
>
> 5) terms that wholly or partially terminate, or allow termination
> of, permission for use of the material they cover, for a user
> who files a software patent lawsuit (that is, a lawsuit
> alleging that some software infringes a patent) not filed in
> retaliation or defense against the earlier filing of another
> software patent lawsuit, or in which the allegedly infringing
> software includes some of the covered material, possibly in
> combination with other software; or
:::: Kills copyleft: too far-reaching restriction
This seems to be too far-reaching. It's possible to terminate license
for a "user who files [a non-retaliating] lawsuit alleging that *some*
software infringes a patent". Some software?!? Or even for a user who
files a retaliating software patent lawsuit, if the lawsuit is related
to the covered material. Even defensive lawsuits?!?
This option, when exercised, seems to discriminate against patent-suers
(even against the ones who sue to defend themselves, in some scenarios).
I'm definitely against software patents, but Free Software licenses
should not discriminate against categories of people, not even against
bad guys.
I would like to see clause 7b5 dropped entirely, as it allows modified
works to be non-free.
===> this option could make the work fail the DFSG, when exercised
>
> 6) terms that are precisely equivalent in type and extent to a
> requirement expressly stated in this License, or that deny
> permission for activities that are clearly not permitted,
> expressly or otherwise, by this License.
>
> All other additional requirements, including attorney's fees
> provisions, choice of law, forum, and venue clauses, arbitration
> clauses, mandatory contractual acceptance clauses, requirements
> regarding changes to the name of the work, and terms that require that
> conveyed copies be governed by a license other than this License,
> are prohibited.
>
> c. Terms Added or Removed by You.
[...]
> 8.[4] Termination.
:::: Improvable: fails to mention fair use
Section 8 seems to be fairly similar to section 4 of GPLv2 (and to
section 8 of GPLv3draft1). As in GPLv2, it fails to mention "fair use"
and similar rights and possible separate licenses (as in disjunctive
dual-licensing...). It should be improved to acknowledge these
possibilities.
>
> You may not propagate or modify the Program except as expressly
[...]
> 9.[5] Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
:::: Improvable: again fails to mention fair use
Another section that fails to mention "fair use" and similar rights and
possible separate licenses. Section 9 should be improved by
acknowledging these possibilities.
>
> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
[...]
> 10.[6] Automatic Licensing of Downstream Users.
>
> Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
> receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
> propagate that work, subject to this License, including any additional
> terms introduced through section 7. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights thus granted or
> affirmed, except in the limited ways permitted by section 7.
:::: Kills copyleft: you *may* impose further restrictions
Thanks to section 7 and to this permission, an exception to the famous
"You may not impose any further restrictions" of GPLv2 was introduced.
This weakens the copyleft mechanism (as I already pointed out when
commenting on section 7). One of the key concepts that make copyleft
actually work is the "You may not impose any further restrictions"
constraint. It's one of the key features of GPLv2. How can this GPLv3
be considered similar in spirit to GPLv2 (as promised in GPLv2, section
9.)?!?
Most "compatible" restrictions listed in section 7 vary from annoying to
non-free, IMO: as a consequence, some non-free licenses would become
GPL-compatible thus defeating the purpose of copyleft and the spirit of
GPLv2. Explicitly mentioning those restrictions in the GPLv3 text would
encourage their adoption and would make it hard to persuade people of
their non-freeness (I'm already able to imagine people answering "Hey,
it's blessed by GPLv3, so it must be Free!").
Moreover, expanding license compatibility can be good, but a copyleft
license is not suitable for this goal. Simple, permissive non-copyleft
free licenses (such as 2-clause BSD, 3-clause BSD, Expat and X11) are
compatible with almost anything you could imagine. These licenses are
good choices if you want compatibility, simplicity, and you don't need
(or want) copyleft. The GNU GPL (v2) is instead a good choice when you
want to publish a work in a Free manner, and prevent others from taking
it proprietary. What's the purpose of an overly complicated and long
license (such as the GPLv3 is becoming: about 1.5 times longer than
GPLv2, which is already a fairly long one!) when you cannot use it to
prevent others from adding undesirable restrictions to your code?
I would like to see this *permission to add restrictions* entirely
dropped from GPLv3.
> Therefore, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge
> for exercise of rights granted under this License. You are not
> responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
>
> If propagation results from a transaction transferring control of an
> organization, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of
> the work also receives a license and a right to possession of the
> Corresponding Source of the work from the party's predecessor in
> interest.
>
> 11. Patents.
>
> You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and
> conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under this
> License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting party
> will not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's
> essential patent claims in the material that the party conveyed,
> against you, arising from your exercise of rights under this License.
> If you convey a covered work, you similarly covenant to all
> recipients, including recipients of works based on the covered work,
> not to assert any of your essential patent claims in the covered work.
>
> If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a
> non-sublicensable patent license that is not generally available to
> all, you must either (1) act to shield downstream users against the
> possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects
> you, or (2) ensure that anyone can copy the Corresponding Source of
> the covered work, free of charge and under the terms of this License,
> through a publicly available network server or other readily
> accessible means.
:::: Bad: possibly not enough as a protection against patents
I don't quite understand how (2) can be seen as a specific form of
shielding downstream users. If I am a downstream user 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
>
> Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
> any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
> otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
>
> 12.[7] No Surrender of Others' Freedom.
:::: Good: basically unchanged
This section seems substantially the same as section 7 of GPLv2 (and of
section 12 of GPLv3draft1), apart from a deleted statement of purpose.
I think it's OK.
>
> If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement
[...]
> [13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
:::: Bad: really problematic and unused
This section seems basically the same as section 8 of GPLv2 (and as
section 13 of GPLv3draft1). It's problematic, even though I cannot
remember any case where it was exercised. I would like to see this
section dropped, since I think a geografically restricted work would
discriminate against some group(s) of people, and thus wouldn't be
really free.
===> this option would fail DFSG#5, when exercised
>
> If the conveying and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
> countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
> copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an
> explicit geographical limitation on conveying, excluding those
> countries, so that conveying is permitted only in or among countries
> not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the
> limitation as if written in the body of this License.]
>
> 14.[9] Revised Versions of this License.
:::: Good: it should be kept as it is
This section is unchanged from GPLv3draft1, and thus is basically the
same as section 9 of GPLv2, apart from minor rephrasing. It's good that
licensors have the option of specifying a certain version of the GNU GPL
"or any later version", but are not forced to do so. In other words,
the upgradeability of the license is a permission that is granted
outside the license text and that is a good feature to keep.
>
> The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
> of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new
> versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
> differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
>
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
> Program specifies that a certain numbered version of this License "or
> any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the
> terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later
> version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program
> does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any
> version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
>
> [15.[10] Requesting Exceptions.
:::: Improvable: OK, but off-topic
Basically the same as section 10 of GPLv2 (and as section 15 of
GPLv3draft1). It seems OK to me, but it sounds off-topic in the license
text... I would move it outside the TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
>
> If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
> programs under other licenses, write to the author to ask for
> permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software
> Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make
> exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of
> preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
> of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.]
>
> NO WARRANTY
>
> 16.[11] Disclaimer of Warranty.
:::: Good: basically unchanged
This section seems to be virtually the same as section 11 of GPLv2 (and
as section 16 of GPLv3draft1). It looks OK to me.
>
> There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by
[...]
> 17.[12] Limitation of Liability.
:::: Good: basically unchanged
This section seems to be virtually the same as section 12 of GPLv2 (and
as section 17 of GPLv3draft1). It looks fine.
>
> In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in
[...]
> END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
--
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Francesco Poli
[...]
> The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
> there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions
> while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client.
> They really are the same problem.
Agreed. There's no way to distinguish these two scenarios: they are
both cases where the service provider wants to prevent the client from
doing something (client-side) that they don't like. This fundamentally
clashes with freedom to modify and adapt software to your own needs.
Joe Smith
"Francesco Poli" <f...@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message
news:2006080217140...@firenze.linux.it...
>
>>
>> This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions
>> of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
>> behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions,
>> if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of
>> your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using,
>> selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in
>> compliance with this License.
>
>:::: Bad: no permission to use the work for bad guys?
>
>This is a so-called patent retaliation clause. Isn't it a bit
>overreaching? It's true that it's triggered only by patent suits that
>are related to the Program and that are intended to effectively restrict
>other parties' freedoms to use, copy or convey their own works based on
>the Program...
>
>But on the other hand, copyright does not cover use, so how can a
>copyright holder (assuming he/she does not hold any patent) terminate
>the right to *use* the work for a licensee? Is this clause intended to
>take away from bad guys (who sue for patent infringement) a right that
>they *would* have if they didn't accept the license??
>
>===> possibly a DFSG issue?
This is explictly limited to modified versions. Apparently the FSF feels
that they can prevent the legal use of a modified version by revoking the
rights to make derivitives retroactively. I assume the theory is it
is illegal to run a program that was made in violation of copyright laws.
Sounds like a weak theory to me.
>>
>> Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is
>> given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works
>> the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
>
>:::: Seems good: as long as this allows parallel conveying on
>DRM-encumbered *and* unencumbered channels
>
>Conveying through DRM-encumbered media or channels seems to be allowed
>as long as final recipients are not denied the freedoms granted by the
>license. For instance, conveying through a DRM-*un*encumbered media or
>channel in parallel to the DRM-encumbered one, seems to be considered
>enough to re-enable the full exercise of the legal rights granted by the
>license. Does this clause permit this scenario? If this is the case,
>then the clause seems to be OK.
The question is whether both are considered part of one act of conveying.
If so then the un-encumbered one gives the users the ability to excercise
their rights
under the licence.
>I would like to see this *permission to add restrictions* entirely
>dropped from GPLv3.
Well I'm not sure, for example these two "restrictions" seem very reasonable
as it would be stupid for the GPL to be label incompatible with annother
licence
for either of these two reasons:
>>
>> 1) terms that require that the origin of the material they cover
>> not be misrepresented, or that modified versions of that
>> material be marked in specific reasonable ways as different
>> from the original version; or
>>
>> 2) warranty or liability disclaimers that differ from the
>> disclaimers in this License; or
>>
I'm doubtful that it is really killing copyleft. If the purpose of
copyleft is to keep software FSF-free then it does it very well.
>> [13.[8] Geographical Limitations.
>
>:::: Bad: really problematic and unused
>
>This section seems basically the same as section 8 of GPLv2 (and as
>section 13 of GPLv3draft1). It's problematic, even though I cannot
>remember any case where it was exercised. I would like to see this
>section dropped, since I think a geografically restricted work would
>discriminate against some group(s) of people, and thus wouldn't be
>really free.
>
>===> this option would fail DFSG#5, when exercised
The brakcets around that section indicates that they intend to drop it,
unless
somebody can convince them otherwise. It is there only to show what form it
would take if it were kept.
>> [15.[10] Requesting Exceptions.
>
>:::: Improvable: OK, but off-topic
>
>Basically the same as section 10 of GPLv2 (and as section 15 of
>GPLv3draft1). It seems OK to me, but it sounds off-topic in the license
>text... I would move it outside the TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
The brakcets around that section indicates that they intend to drop it,
unless
somebody can convince them otherwise. It is there only to show what form it
would take if it were kept.
---------------
Thomas Dickey
> :::: Kills copyleft: this is not in the spirit of GPLv2
> I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> additional requirements to be added.
> That is *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.
true - since it is against the spirit of GPLv2 it automatically makes it
impossible to invoke the remainder of section 9 ("you have the option...").
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Francesco Poli
> Francesco Poli <f...@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
>
> > :::: Kills copyleft: this is not in the spirit of GPLv2
>
> > I strongly *dislike* the entire concept of allowing a limited set of
> > additional requirements to be added.
>
> > That is *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.
>
> true - since it is against the spirit of GPLv2 it automatically makes
> it impossible to invoke the remainder of section 9 ("you have the
> option...").
I wish it were so easy!
The FSF claim that a horribly non-free license (the GFDL) is a "free
documentation license" (it's claimed in its very name!), they can also
claim that the GPLv3 with this permission to add restrictions is
"similar in spirit to the" GPLv2.
Whether this is true or not is of very little importance: I doubt that a
court can be successfully convinced that a work released under the GPL
"v2 or later" cannot be used under the GPLv3, on the basis of this
betrayal of the spirit of GPLv2... :-(
Francesco Poli
>
> "Francesco Poli" <f...@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message
> news:2006080217140...@firenze.linux.it...
[...]
> >:::: Bad: no permission to use the work for bad guys?
[...]
> This is explictly limited to modified versions. Apparently the FSF
> feels that they can prevent the legal use of a modified version by
> revoking the rights to make derivitives retroactively. I assume the
> theory is it is illegal to run a program that was made in violation of
> copyright laws.
>
> Sounds like a weak theory to me.
Mmmmh, let's say
:::: Bad: no permission to use a modified work for bad guys?
then.
I think the issue is there anyway...
[...]
> >:::: Seems good: as long as this allows parallel conveying on
> >DRM-encumbered *and* unencumbered channels
[...]
> The question is whether both are considered part of one act of
> conveying. If so then the un-encumbered one gives the users the
> ability to excercise their rights
> under the licence.
I hope this is the right license interpretation.
Note that I've already submitted a comment like this for GPLv3draft1,
but, unfortunately, nobody from FSF explained what is the intended
interpretation...
>
>
> >I would like to see this *permission to add restrictions* entirely
> >dropped from GPLv3.
>
> Well I'm not sure, for example these two "restrictions" seem very
> reasonable as it would be stupid for the GPL to be label incompatible
> with annother licence
> for either of these two reasons:
>
>
> >>
> >> 1) terms that require that the origin of the material they
> >> cover not be misrepresented, or that modified versions of
> >> that material be marked in specific reasonable ways as
> >> different from the original version; or
> >>
> >> 2) warranty or liability disclaimers that differ from the
> >> disclaimers in this License; or
> >>
>
> I'm doubtful that it is really killing copyleft. If the purpose of
> copyleft is to keep software FSF-free then it does it very well.
Well, those two restrictions are not harmful, I think.
But IMO the problem is the possibility to add restrictions, in general.
If some restriction is a good one, then, incorporate it in the license
text; otherwise, exclude it. I object the idea that a license like the
GPLv3, which is claimed to be a copyleft, allows a modified version of
the work to have some restrictions added with respect to the original
version: this is not the way copyleft works!
[...]
> The brakcets around that section indicates that they intend to drop
> it, unless
> somebody can convince them otherwise. It is there only to show what
> form it would take if it were kept.
[...]
> The brakcets around that section indicates that they intend to drop
> it, unless
> somebody can convince them otherwise. It is there only to show what
> form it would take if it were kept.
Yeah, I know: that's why I'm going to speak up and suggest dropping
them! I'm going to do it so that they know I agree with the decision to
drop them! ;-)
Thanks for the comments.
Thomas Dickey
> I wish it were so easy!
> The FSF claim that a horribly non-free license (the GFDL) is a "free
> documentation license" (it's claimed in its very name!), they can also
> claim that the GPLv3 with this permission to add restrictions is
> "similar in spirit to the" GPLv2.
> Whether this is true or not is of very little importance: I doubt that a
> court can be successfully convinced that a work released under the GPL
> "v2 or later" cannot be used under the GPLv3, on the basis of this
> betrayal of the spirit of GPLv2... :-(
I don't believe courts will be relevant in this regard. I had in mind
the problem that will arise when package maintainers "fix" packages by
changing the copy of the GPL which may be included with packages.
Besides this, is also the nuisance that I find with various packages
putting GPL licenses on non-GPL programs which I maintain.
This will just add another twist to it.
Lionel Elie Mamane
> On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
>> there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while
>> aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They
>> really are the same problem.
> The issue is how the GPLv3 affects a service provider's right to put
> restrictions on usage of a service,
I don't see how it does that; the service provider can still by
contract / terms of use / ... rule out restrictions on usage of a
service, and terminate service to people that don't respect the
contract, or sue them for damages, ...
It does make enforcing these restrictions by program (rather than by
human) more difficult, or partially impossible, yes.
--
Lionel
Lionel Elie Mamane
> "Nathanael Nerode" <ner...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:2006072802...@doctormoo.dyndns.org...
>> There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft
>> of the GPL v.3.
>> You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) --
>> but if there are any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please
>> bring them up here as well so we can try to hash out whether they
>> really are.
> Note that the fact that that DFSG 10 may make GPLv3 free regardless
> of other violations, because "GPL" is used without version
> information.
That interpretation would be *very* distasteful to me. My
interpretation is that it refers to the version of the GPL that was
current at time the text was written, or possibly also all past
versions. If version 10 of the GNU GPL discriminates against employees
of ${COMPANY}, it is non-DFSG free. If your interpretation were
common, I would propose an amendment to clarify it.
On the other hand, I don't see Debian surviving in its current form if
glibc, etc were to become non-DFSG free, unless there is a wide
collaboration between GNU/Linux distributions to fork the bunch at the
last free version (like with xfree86/xorg), or we develop the
resources to maintain the fork ourselves or ...
--
Lionel
Joe Smith
"Lionel Elie Mamane" <lio...@mamane.lu> wrote in message
news:2006080603...@capsaicin.mamane.lu...
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because
>>> there is no way to block draconian DRM restrictions while
>>> aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They
>>> really are the same problem.
>
>> The issue is how the GPLv3 affects a service provider's right to put
>> restrictions on usage of a service,
>
> I don't see how it does that; the service provider can still by
> contract / terms of use / ... rule out restrictions on usage of a
> service, and terminate service to people that don't respect the
> contract, or sue them for damages, ...
>
> It does make enforcing these restrictions by program (rather than by
> human) more difficult, or partially impossible, yes.
Very true. The clause certainly would allow the service to have a TOS
that says: "Use of modified clients for the purpose of cheating is strictly
prohibited".
There is no freedom problem with that.
It also does not prevent online services from attempting to check that a
client is official.
It simply requires that it be possible for a modified client to look the
same to the server.
As long as some types of modifications can be made with the program
appearing identical to the server.
Other types of modifcations might not be possible without the srver
noticing. For example some cheating modifications
might be server noticable (rate of fire too high, sudden increase in money
levels, etc).
Joe Smith
"Lionel Elie Mamane" <lma...@debian.org> wrote in message
news:2006080603...@capsaicin.mamane.lu...
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:16:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
>> "Nathanael Nerode" <ner...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> news:2006072802...@doctormoo.dyndns.org...
>
>>> There's a lot of complicated wording changes from the first draft
>>> of the GPL v.3.
>
>>> You know where to leave your comments (http://gplv3.fsf.org/) --
>>> but if there are any DFSG-freeness issues in the new drafts, please
>>> bring them up here as well so we can try to hash out whether they
>>> really are.
>
>> Note that the fact that that DFSG 10 may make GPLv3 free regardless
>> of other violations, because "GPL" is used without version
>> information.
>
> That interpretation would be *very* distasteful to me. My
> interpretation is that it refers to the version of the GPL that was
> current at time the text was written, or possibly also all past
> versions. If version 10 of the GNU GPL discriminates against employees
> of ${COMPANY}, it is non-DFSG free. If your interpretation were
> common, I would propose an amendment to clarify it.
>
Considering that it is ammendable, it should always be reasonable to
interpret it now, rather than at the time of writting.
That is because it is always possible to be correct as it would be read now.
Now GPL v3 being non-free would be a disaster, and I really think we would
need to modify the DFSG to make it free, because
forking the entire GNU project is too difficult. (Although it is interesting
that some parts of the GNU project are dead upsteam, making Debian the de
facto maintainer of those packages.)