[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:42:38 +0100 |
I don't. It's very carelessly written[1], and it's very hard to
understand the motivation for many of the exceptions. A leading
example is the blanket permission to "propagate" effectively
copy-protected programs, which is really weird, and equally
explicitly contradicted in the section on DRM. It doesn't get
better from there, either, except for those sections that are taken
verbatim from, or are slight clarifications of, GPL v2.
You should read the rationale. Oh, and it is a draft, so if you have
comments, http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and post them there, not here.
In fact it says Thou Shalt Not Use Free Software for Privacy
Protection, because what else is privacy protection but white-hat
DRM?
It says no such thing. Being able to keep data private is a essential
freedom, that the GPLv3 protects. What you are not allowed to do, is
subjugate others freedom. Which is exactly what Digital Restriction
Management does.
More fundamentally, this retracts a core principle of the GPL up to
v2: it doesn't tell you what to do with the software, only the
license terms under which you may redistribute it. This violates
Freedom 0, which is explicitly affirmed in dGPLv3[2] for the first
time.
Freedom zero is not violated in either GPLv2, or dGPLv3. You are
allowed by both licenses to run the program for any purpose.
I'm sure that all of these questions can be answered, more or less
satisfactorily. But given that they haven't been answered yet, and
will presumably require changes in the language to be aswered
satisfactorily, it is _way_ premature to consider using this
refugee from _Fantasy & Science Fiction_ for any free software.[3]
If you wish to have your questions answered, http://gplv3.fsf.org is
the proper place for such discussions.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: contributors' licensing conditions, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: contributors' licensing conditions, Andy Tai, 2006/01/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: contributors' licensing conditions, Haakon Riiser, 2006/01/18
- [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] GNU Hurd, Ludovic Courtès, 2006/01/18
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] GNU Hurd, Haakon Riiser, 2006/01/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] GNU Hurd, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2006/01/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] GNU Hurd, Andy Tai, 2006/01/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] GNU Hurd, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2006/01/18
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: contributors' licensing conditions, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2006/01/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: contributors' licensing conditions, Matthew Palmer, 2006/01/17
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/01/17
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, James Blackwell, 2006/01/19
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2006/01/19
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions, Andrew Suffield, 2006/01/19