Re: Final text of GPL v3 (original) (raw)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment:<pgpdWlW6ESdOD.pgp>
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: