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.
> 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.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
>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.
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org
> >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.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> "Andrew Donnellan" <ajdli...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1007a32a0607281624j5efe57cbp69207b9512f6b2ed@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.
> 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.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_...@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, 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.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:19:49 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:46:54 -0400 Joe Smith 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.
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.
-- 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
>> 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. ---------------
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
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...").
> > :::: 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... :-(
-- 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
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 19:20:01 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
> "Francesco Poli" <f...@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message > news:20060802171408.5ac50dc5.frx@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.
-- 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 <f...@firenze.linux.it> wrote: > 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.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_...@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
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:16:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > "Nathanael Nerode" <nero...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message > news:20060728021949.GA4694@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
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:57:11PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: >> On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_...@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).
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.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.)
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQU...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
