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

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:41:49 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:

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

Clause 2c of GPLv2 is already an inconvenience and border-line with respect to DFSG-freeness. This is, at least, my humble opinion on the matter.

"Border-line" does not mean that it fails the DFSG, but that it's very close to fail.

"Border-line" implies that it could go either direction. This is not true. Regardless of how you feel about this clause, the GPLv2 is recognized as a free license under the DFSG.

OK, maybe I used misleading words (remember that IANAENS, I Am Not An English Native Speaker).

What I mean is that, IMHO, clause 2c is a flaw of GPLv2. Not a flaw which is bad enough to make the license fail to meet the DFSG, but close to do so.

In this sense, it's "border-line": it could be or not be enough to make the license non-free. Upon careful analysis, it turns out to be close to the DFSG-freeness boundary, but fortunately on the free side.

This is my own view on clause 2c. IANADD, TINASOTODP (This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position).

Because of this opinion I hold on GPLv2#2c, I see GPLv3#5d as something worse. It's the same requirement extended from interfaces that "read commands interactively" to every kind of "interactive user interface". Extending a flaw is making things worse.

Extending this clause from interfaces that "read commands interactively" to every kind of "interactive user interface" is really making things worse, which is exactly what I commented.

It is not a qualitative change. I see no grounds for saying that it's worse than the existing clause.

It is worse: not qualitatively worse, but quantitatively worse. Maybe it's not worse enough to become non-free, but it's worse anyway.

Compare with the obnoxious advertising clause of the 4-clause BSD license: it's an inconvenience close to fail the DFSG, IMO. But we accept it as DFSG-free. However, I would not be happy to see a license that extends this restriction to a wider scenario.

The 4-clause BSD is also not "close to failing the DFSG".

IMHO, it is. IANADD, TINASOTODP.

[...]

to call something "close to non-free" is just an expression of your dislike for it, masquerading as an objective judgement.

Well, it seems that even DFSG-freeness judgements are not always so objective, or otherwise we would not be discussing about them all the time on this list...

[...]

Clause 2c of GPLv2 is close to fail the DFSG, but passes. Clause 5d of GPLv3 is worse (since it's more restrictive, being extended to more cases), and hence it's even closer to fail the DFSG.

There is no qualitative difference between the two clauses. We have never treated quantitative differences between licenses as relevant to freeness. Would you claim that the GPLv2's "make the source available for three years" requirement is ok, but a clause saying "make the source available for six years" is not?

I think you are talking about clause 3b of GPLv2, aren't you?

Maybe you picked the wrong example, because clause 3b is a non-free restriction. Fortunately there's another alternative option, represented by clause 3a, which is DFSG-free, and consequently GPLv2 is acceptable.

This is my opinion, but also the opinion of other debian-legal regulars.

[...]

I challenge you to offer a reasonable bright line test by which we would say the GPLv2 clause is free and the GPLv3 clause is non-free. I believe you will fail.

Quite possibly I will fail. That's why I pointed out clause 5d as a flaw, without saying that I believed it was definitely non-free. I said that it's "possibly a DFSG-freeness issue" and waited for other comments (which I am already getting).

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

Yes, let's. Preferably others who are actually Debian developers, instead of non-DDs who discourage developer participation on debian-legal through the numerical superiority of their posts advancing outlandish interpretations of the DFSG that are untempered by such trifles as reality.

Woaah! Feeling appreciated is always gratifying!

[...]

Mmmmh, if one cannot redistribute a work (because of patents or whatever), I think it fails DFSG#1...

DFSG#1 says "The license of a Debian component may not restrict DFSG#[...]", so maybe one can argue that the copyright license cannot be blamed for patent restrictions. But DFSG#1 does not talk about "copyright license", merely about "license".

It talks about the license of a Debian component. A patent license is not a license of a Debian component, it's a license to third-party "intellectual property".

Sometimes it's not third-party, but belongs to the same entity which holds copyright on the work.

Anyway, I think I get what you mean: you see the software patent one as an "external problem", not to be blamed to the work itself, and hence not affecting the freeness of the work. Just like a stupid law that forbids the distribution of programs that lack a GUI, or something similarly absurd...

According to this view, let's rephrase my comments on patent-related clauses and just say "possibly an insufficient protection from patent lawsuits". With the understanding that the GPLv2 is even less protecting against those issues.

Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP, IANAENS.

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

Attachment:<pgpxYLVI16XrZ.pgp>
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: