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:

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,

* 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?

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

* Should a new GPL attempt to explicitly broaden its applicability

* What parts of the GPL are difficult to understand?

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

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

* 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 ?

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

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


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!

--Branden Robinson