[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- grasping/refining the GNU Logic

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- grasping/refining the GNU Logic
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:12:37 +0200

commentators at work...

Comment 1747: Does not consider combining.
Regarding the text: When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at
your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from
any part of it.
In section: gpl3.licensecompat.p15.s1
Submitted by: coezbek on 2006-09-19 at 22:10 EDT
noted by coezbek on 2006-09-19 at 22:10 EDT:

    What happens if one combines a work that is under a license
compatible with the GPLv3 but which requires one of 7 b. 1-6. My
understanding of license compatibility says that I will be able to
choose the GPLv3 as the license of the combined result will gives us a
problem with 7 c.) because I cannot actually remove these clauses
without violating the original license. Maybe 7 c.) should be amended to
talk about these issues and revoke the right to remove the requirement
7b. 1-6 in case it is a combination of other licenses that require them.
I fear that this will lead to all GPL v3 licensed software to gravitate
towards certain of these additional requirements. For instance 7 b. 5
seems to be a likely candidate because of the wording of the ASL 2 and
EPL 1.0. Please comment since this seems crucial for establishing
license compatiblity, Christopher

noted by sepreece on 2006-09-20 at 21:24 EDT:

    Well, the Licensing FAQ says that a license is compatible with the
GPL only if it allows redistribution under the GPL. I share your
uncertainty as to what that means when the terms of the "compatible"
license are not exactly the terms of the GPL. However, I'm reasonably
sure you can't remove any license language from the non-GPL software if
that language includes a clause that says you can't remove it. I think
that means you're right about not having the right to remove those
additional requirements in the licensing of the whole work, but the
license ought to make that clear. 

Comment 1746: Important but unrealistic information
Regarding the text: If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into
other free programs under other licenses, write to the author to ask for
In section: gpl3.requestingexceptions.p0.s1
Submitted by: coezbek on 2006-09-19 at 21:41 EDT
noted by coezbek on 2006-09-19 at 21:41 EDT:

    This will fail in many situations since *the* author does not hold
the copyright to all of the software. Even if everybody on the project
team can be convinced to allow relicensing (but how does this work? Is
an email enough or do we need signed and written documents for the
person who wishes to relicense our software) there is still the problem
with 3rd party GPL code used. In all pratical cases I know of this is
basically impossible if a collaborative development process with code
reuse from lots of projects is used. I have commented in the title of
this section that it would be much more important to talk about license
compatiblity: How can works from two different licenses be combined
(GPLv3 + Modified BSD can be licensed under GPLv3 but also Modified

Comment 1745: Defining Compatibility
Regarding the text: Requesting Exceptions.
In section: gpl3.requestingexceptions.0.0
Submitted by: coezbek on 2006-09-19 at 21:32 EDT
noted by coezbek on 2006-09-19 at 21:32 EDT:

    Shouldn't this section be used to define compatibility of the GPL v3
with other Free Software licenses? Certainly there is the list at or at but nowhere does
it explicitly say that one can take GPL v3 licensed software and combine
it with a work licensed under Apache ASL (for instance) and create a new
derived work that I can either license under ASL or GPL v3. I think it
would greatly help in the fight against license proliferation if the
rules for creating such derived works would be included in the license
itself. This certainly is mostly a issue for everybody who is not only
stuck in the Java trap but also has to juggle three incompatibile worlds
at the moment: GNU Classpath and friends are GPL (+ Linking exception),
the Apache world has the ASL and Eclipse has EPL. Maybe Java would run
free by now if we did not have these barriers. Thank you for making this
process open and transparent! Christopher

Comment 1744: this section is insufficient or redundant.
Regarding the text: 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 t
In section: gpl3.sourcecode.p3.s1
Submitted by: bero on 2006-09-19 at 18:24 EDT
noted by bero on 2006-09-19 at 18:24 EDT:

    I think this section is insufficient or redundant. I think this
section is to avoid Tivoization - Source Ready, modify OK, compile OK,
but can't run (no freedom 0). However, I think it is insufficient only
by mentioning encryption or authorization keys. For example: If "object
code form" is bootable CD/DVD-ROM, "Corresponding Source" must include
cd image build script. mkisofs(or cloopfs,squashfs etc) and cd wrinting
software is "general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs", so need not include in "Corresponding Source" Really? if
hardware only mount "Special CD/DVD media", my rebuild version can't
run. This problem often happens on game console.

    If "object code form" is flash rom , "Corresponding Source" must
include flash image build script. mkromfs(or jff2 etc) and flash update
software is "general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs", so need not include in "Corresponding Source" Really? if
"flash update software" is locked on "Official flash image", my rebuild
version can't run. This problem often happens on appliance such as
router, NAS etc.

    I suggest to mention other example, or simply ''In other words,
"object code form" built from unmodified and modified version of
"Corresponding Source" must be installable and runnable.'' (or such
sentence) and other details such as encryption or authorization keys
written in GPLv3 FAQ as example. 

Comment 1743: Font/Sample/Symbol issue needs clarification
Regarding the text: You must license the entire work
In section: gpl3.distribmod.p2.s1
Submitted by: rl on 2006-09-19 at 12:09 EDT
noted by rl on 2006-09-19 at 12:09 EDT:

    In my opinion, as an artist/musician, the GPL needs to treat "stock
components"(fonts, samples, symbols) differently to larger works, and
make this very clear, because the gpl is not designed for artwork/music
etc, and artists/musicians may well hestitate to risk their works coming
under the GPL through the simple inclusion of GPL'd fonts/music-symbols
etc in any music-page they create using a GPL'd program (,
Rosegarden etc). This could discourage the use of any gpl'd music
software by, for example, the whole music and film industry, which would
be an utter disaster and a terrible blow to your efforts. As a musician,
I distribute my music freely, but the gpl does not suit it's
distribution, being designed for software, so I use another tailor-made
licence. If people find that works have accidently become gpl'd, this
may generate a great backlash against the gpl, which is very undesirable
for everyone, and could gererate tremendous anti-gpl publicity. I hope
my honest thoughts about this issue are useful to you. Perhaps my
worries are unfounded, but I suspect that a work which incorporated a
gpl font would definately be a "derivative work".


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]