Differences between revisions 8 and 10 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 8 as of 2006-01-06 21:50:39
Size: 12929
Editor: ?SiwardDeGroot
Comment:
Revision 10 as of 2006-01-06 23:02:09
Size: 14213
Editor: ?BrandenRobinson
Comment: Fix formatting.
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 252: Line 252:
-------

-------
-----

Siward--

A couple of comments:
 * I'm glad that my call for comments has piqued your interest enough to join the wild and woolly world of Wiki. :) The formatting of your message, though, makes it more difficult for me to follow than it could be. Would you edit it to be more conventional, or permit people to update the formatting?
 * Some of your comments, such as those about "Invariant Sections" and "FREE SOFTWARE REQUIRES FREE DOCUMENTATION", are out of scope; they are about the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License), not the GNU GPL (General Public License). While Don, Mako, and I are aware of deficiencies in the GFDL -- and the FSF is aware of our concerns -- the scope of this conference is the GPL. I'm pretty sure the GFDL will come up from time to time, but nevertheless, it would be helpful if you could limit your critique on this particular Wiki page to the GPL itself. Asides about the GFDL are fine, but right now your comment looks as if you have mistaken parts of the GFDL for parts of the GPL.

Thanks again for your comments. Your final suggestion is particularly noteworthy; in fact, as I recall, we have invited RMS to DebConf in the past (DC3 in Oslo at the very least), but he has declined. Still, we should keep trying!

--BrandenRobinson

-----

This page is an area where Debian developers and users can leave comments so that ?BrandenRobinson, DonArmstrong and BenjaminMakoHill can better represent the desires and hopes of the Project when they attend the GPL v3 Launch conference at MIT in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January 2006.

Branden suggests drafting comments to answer questions along the following lines:

  • What are the current GPL's strengths?
  • What are the current GPL's deficiencies?
  • Are there significant threats to software freedom that the current GPL does not address?
  • Should a new GPL attempt to explicitly broaden its applicability to works other than computer programs (e.g., image, sound, or music files; documentation; dictionaries; encyclopedias)?
  • What parts of the GPL are difficult to understand?
  • If you have copyright in a GPL-licensed work, what area(s) of the GPL do you find difficult to adjudicate?
  • What part of the current GPL would you most like to see preserved as-is?
  • What part of the current GPL would you most like to see changed?
  • Is the time ripe for revising the GPL?
  • On balance, has the GPL been a benefit or a detriment to the Debian Project?

Do not feel compelled to comment on areas that don't interest you.

Please do not edit other users' comments except as they request (e.g., for spelling corrections and improved grammar).

Branden recommends placing comments between two horizontal rules. Please sign your contributions; anonymous comments are not possible on this Wiki, as it is only editable by registered users. If you would like to comment but want your identity to be held in confidence, please send private mail to branden@debian.org with the subject GPLv3 launch comment. Feel free to GPG-sign and/or -encrypt such mails.

Branden is monolingual in English, so comments left in other languages will have to be translated for him to understand them.


This is an example comment.

-- ?BrandenRobinson



At various points, people have wanted to base distributions on top of GPL-incompatible but still free (or arguably free) system components. GPLv2 makes this difficult, but it's not obvious that preventing this provides any benefits to the recipients of software. It would be advantageous to suggest that this situation be examined in GPLv3.

-- ?MatthewGarrett



Comment of siward :

Sorry about the formatting ; this is the first time i edit a wikipage. ALL OF THIS IS 'in my (not very well-informed) opinion'. My comments apply sometimes to GPL as a licence,

  • sometimes to GPL as a standard. and sometimes to GPL as a set of moral norms.

* What are the current GPL's strengths?

  • + It seems to do the job. + The spirit of it is well considered, and more info about it is easily findable.

* What are the current GPL's deficiencies?

  • + It is not very thoroughly phrased
    • in 'on a medium', i think it hardwires implementation. and 'machine-readable copy' ; the machine might even be proprietary. and 'customarily used for software interchange' ; what if you invented a brand new medium ? 'sourcecode means preferred format for modifying' ; so obliged to ship entire cvs. '...components of THE operating system on which the software runs' ; argh. etc.
    + It is written in pidgin-legalese, without translation.
    • This is not the same language the authors use in daily life,
      • consequently they don't have full command over it, and it shows.
      Adding a number of annotations at each article,
      • not legally binding, saying same in plain english would make the information much more accessible ;
      Currently it tries to comment on the terms and conditions in the terms and conditions ;
      • A clear separation of which would enable use of plain english.
      so:
      • Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
      or:
      • Dear reader ; we don't want to take away your rights,
        • we just wanna insure the freedom of copylefted works, okay ?
        So that's why your entire work comes under the GPL
        • if you quote even the tiniest part of a GPL'ed work.
      I think it would make the GPL much more understandable.
      • (and revisable).
    + It does not give all users the rights that all american citizens have on this software.
    • Wouldn't cost them any,
      • they just refuse cooperation with anyone who doesn't share their dedication.
      Dutch law allows quoting small parts of any work, whether GPL'ed or not,
      • and i think so does american law, but FSF refuses to acknowledge that their country's lawmakers had common sense.
      You call that free ?
    + It does not tell that most people have additional rights (like to quote),
    • and thus does not empower the users to use their rights.
    • This sounds more like free beer than like freedom to me.
    + It insufficiently limits what is allowed as invariant section.
    • It requires that contents of invariant sections must be metadata. Then it (seemingly out of the blue)
      • allows obligation to put an invariant section at a specific place.
      This creates an unbearable restriction on freedom of that work,
      • which can clearly be seen in a work that contains quoted portions of two GPL'ed manuals :
        • It would need to state on it's frontpage 'this is a foo manual' and 'this is a bar manual'. It would need to falsely 'acknowledge' on frontpage that
          • main authors of this document are authors of any GPL'ed document of which a part was quoted.
      I think the GPL could allow more lenient quotation on condition of
      • 'not more than x % of a work is quoted'.
      This example is about manuals, but same applies to libraries ;
      • if one function is copied, copyer would have to put same acknowledgement as when whole library was copied.
    • This has as a consequence that, imo, Debian should not automatically consider a GPL'ed work free. There are clear examples of what should be allowed :
      • copyright, acknowledgement of significant contributors, pointer to project homepage, notify that this is a modification, obligation to rename to avoid confusion. For the rest, i do not know of any things that should be invariant.
    + It does not distinguish between full copies and copies of minor parts of it.
    • I said that above already ; i think it is an independent point.
    + It works within the law.
    • That is to say, it does not offer any real protection :
      • Only the form is protected, not the content. Consequently, if it is copied into another form and then upgraded to it's next major version,
        • original work is used and GPL has not protected it.
      There's not much that can be done about this one.
    + It requires to provide source, but does not specify that requirement.
    • If source is not provided a year after it is asked for, it would not be a breach of GPL.
      • (breach requires proving in court that the intention to distribute was never present).
    + Does not allow pointing to Debian's archive for sourcefiles.
    • This restricts distribution more than it protects rights.
    + Demands that the act of running the program is not restricted,
    • which seems inconsequent as it forbids restricting use of the program to free platforms.
    + The thing that really protects the freedom is the availability on the web, not the GPL.

* Are there significant threats to software freedom that the current GPL does not address?

  • + It does not delete microsoft. + It does not keep Debian from becoming over-zealously idealistic. + Seriously, it does not require any derived work to be documented as well as the original is.
    • (i had this kde installation once, where it's helpfiles told me to click on the kde icon on
      • the toolbar ; and i couldn't find it anywhere. Later i found it hat been replaced with a picture of a red hat.)
    + It is itself not lenient enough. + It does not address the rightfull desire of authors to get rewarded
    • (like: if you do make a profit on this,
      • i want 10% times the fraction of your work that is my work)
    • Probably as a consequence of that, it requires PROMINENT notifications ; Paying attention is a form of paying,
      • so they don't really give it away for free, yet requirement to pay authors is not allowed by GPL.
    + It considers many things as not free that are seen by the general public as free.
    • Debian has that same problem. It results from looking from the standpoint of a limited class of users.
      • IT professionals (and professionalistic amateurs) need the source. End-users need the documentation. GPL only protects pro's

* Are there significant threats to software freedom that the current GPL does address ?

  • + It sets a standard. + It raises awareness. + It improves interoperability Maybe the GPL prevents abuse. I don't know an example where enforcing the GPL rectified abuse.

* Should a new GPL attempt to explicitly broaden its applicability

  • to works other than computer programs (e.g., image, sound, or music files; documentation; dictionaries; encyclopedias)?
  • + It should first be updated (or clarified that it's literal text is uptodate) + Then it should be amended, specifically to be more lenient. + If the result of that would be so well-considered as to be more widely applicable,
    • then broadening it's scope would be natural.
    • I would like it to be so general that
      • at it's extremes it would converge to an ideal for-profit copyright. I have not seen that yet.
      For freely distributable works, RFC's for example, balance of
      • need to distribute modified versus need to correctly document would be different.
      I am not overly impressed with GPL2's idea of optimal balance for programs.
      • On one hand it is so afraid of evil hijackers that it forbids more than necessary, On other hand It's ideals are so high that it does not allow
        • restricting use to platforms based on whether that platform as a whole is free.
    + The GPL itself can not be brought under the GPL. So in my opinion : No, it should not try to force that.

* What parts of the GPL are difficult to understand?

  • Every part of it that is not plain english.

* If you have copyright in a GPL-licensed work,

  • what area(s) of the GPL do you find difficult to adjudicate ?

:-) dict adjudictate to try and determine, as a court

  • + How applicable it is in countries whose law is not based on roman law. + Everything that is not annotated.
    • (i am not an expert. there can be things i am unaware of everywhere.)
    + The differences between it's stated spirit and it's terms. (no quoting for example).

* What part of the current GPL would you most like to see preserved as-is?

  • + It's original spirit and intent.

* What part of the current GPL would you most like to see changed?

  • + Insensitiveness of it's invariant sections + It's legalese :
    • FREE LICENSES NEED FREE DOCUMENTATION
    • There are parts of it that are neither obvious nor annotated,
      • and for foreign readers plain english might be the only thing they can understand.
      Plus that it is not well-phrased to begin with.

* Is the time ripe for revising the GPL ?

  • Ie: will harvesting now yield good fruits ? Who knows. I hope it would include my two cents.

* On balance, has the GPL been a benefit or a detriment to the Debian Project ?

  • + Benefit. + The idea of it is sound,
    • even to the extent that awareness of it has grown over the years. Consequently, it could do with an update.
    + The idea of it being usable in a law setting is good,
    • but it is a bit too much like a law for my liking.

*** Which improvements would you like to see in the new GPL ?

  • + Option variants.
    • If they want their entire work to be an invariant section,
      • why not give them that freedom of choice.
      But accompany it with a mention that Debian does not accept that as free. This way all (nearly) free licenses could be GPL variants. And it separates the legal formulation from the moral judgement,
      • which would be a good thing.

*** Which things do you think the FSF would like to change about Debian,

  • and how do you feel about these ?
  • + None that i'm aware of,
    • but if we want to comment on theirs, we should let them comment on ours.


Siward--

A couple of comments:

  • I'm glad that my call for comments has piqued your interest enough to join the wild and woolly world of Wiki. :) The formatting of your message, though, makes it more difficult for me to follow than it could be. Would you edit it to be more conventional, or permit people to update the formatting?

  • Some of your comments, such as those about "Invariant Sections" and "FREE SOFTWARE REQUIRES FREE DOCUMENTATION", are out of scope; they are about the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License), not the GNU GPL (General Public License). While Don, Mako, and I are aware of deficiencies in the GFDL -- and the FSF is aware of our concerns -- the scope of this conference is the GPL. I'm pretty sure the GFDL will come up from time to time, but nevertheless, it would be helpful if you could limit your critique on this particular Wiki page to the GPL itself. Asides about the GFDL are fine, but right now your comment looks as if you have mistaken parts of the GFDL for parts of the GPL.

Thanks again for your comments. Your final suggestion is particularly noteworthy; in fact, as I recall, we have invited RMS to DebConf in the past (DC3 in Oslo at the very least), but he has declined. Still, we should keep trying!

--?BrandenRobinson