[ CC'ing the FSF in the hope they will at least read, maybe even
publish this opinion. While I am the head developer of the MirOS
Project, a free 4.4BSD-derived operating system and tools, this
is not a formally issued statement from all developers. We may
comment in a joint press release on the final GPL/LGPLv3 though. ]
Hello people,
I've just read through the draft and rationale for the first draft
of the GNU GPL version 3.
After all, I am quite impressed - I had expected more requirements
(such as that web applications under GPLv3 are _forced_ to offer a
provision for downloading the source - it's only an optional clause
which is allowed like the BSD advertising clause but not even en-
dorsed by the FSF). Also, I like internationalisation process.
I would really like them to remove the geographical distribution
part and change terms such as "world-wide" (e.g. for the patent
licence part) into something applying to the universe... not too
urgent but there are already computers flying around in the solar
system, and technology is improving steadily.
I think it's a bit ill-worded that "Regardless of any
other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute
covered works that illegally invade users' privacy".
Does this mean I can't GPLv3 my spyware? 
I think limiting the scope of the licence is bad - I'd rather
do things differently but I cannot grok the idea behind the
quote. (Illegal activity cannot be allowed by the licence
anyway, as far as I am concerned.)
I also still like the MirBSD licence (http://mirbsd.de/MirOS-Licence)
much better if alone for the following two issues:
Developers are still required to state the "date of any change",
even though the interpretation is given that the last change is
OK and the wording only stays for GPLv2 compatibility. And they
say IIRC that CVS is enough. (Do I lose the licence if I acci-
dentally or by a damaged drive lose my CVS repository?)
And the biggest issue I have with the GPLv3, which also already
existed in GPLv2, is the requirement for programmes to offer an
option to show or even forcing them to show at startup the li-
cencing information. I strongly think it is enough to document
that in the source code or accompanying documentation (especial-
ly in a licence such as the GPL which forces source code avai-
lability). I will not implement such an option if I can avoid it.
Does GNU still stand for code bloat?
Finally, I do hope that the LGPL is not forgetten. When I am
asked what I dislike about the GPL(v2) I usually answer "let me
say it like this: I do not have a problem with the LGPL, except
that it's 25 KB and nobody is going to read it". (The FSF licen-
ces tend to include too many political statements anyway.)
Now I'd like to know what debian-legal and Theo de Raadt think.
Sincerely,
//mirabile -- Head Developer, MirOS Project
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
| 
