On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 09:12, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> Wouldn't a requirement that if you make the software available for
use
> >> to another party, you provide an offer of source to those users
make
> >> much more sense, and avoid entanglements with the function of the
> >> software?
> >
> > That would be impossible under US copyright law, where "use" isn't
one
> > of the 17 usc 106 exclusive rights, while modification is.
>
> Public performance is restricted by copyright law; I'd certainly
> consider an Apache web server to be a public performance of Apache.
That is an open question. I understand that one idea for v3 is to write
something like, "If running software is public performance, you can do
it, so long as [ (2)(d)-like thing ]". I haven't sen text on it.
> In any case, there's another problem I allude to above but didn't
> mention clearly: the existing requirements for source distribution are
> very flexible. This proposed 2d imposes technical limitations on
> functionality.
>
> Every time a license tries to use exact technical definitions, it ends
> up breaking a few years later.
Yes, that's a known bug. We welcome suggestions for generalizations.
> I'd far prefer to see a GPLv3 grant and guarantee more freedom, not
> less:
>
> * Remove technical requirements such as 2c,
I agree that (2)(c) as it stands is broken.
> the object/executable langauge in 3
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
> the header/Makefile
Do you mean that source code should not include Makefiles ("the scripts
used to control compilation and installation of the executable")?
> and OS exceptions in the later
> section of 3.
I do not think you really want to remove the major component exception
-- doing so would basically make Free Software impossible on proprietary
operating systems.
> * Remove the strange definition that a work containing nothing both
> creative and derived from a GPL'd work be considered a derivative of
> the GPL'd work: that is, remove the definition that linking is
> modification. It's not in the license now, but clearly state that
> if you incorporate nothing creative from the GPL's work, you are not
> a derivative work.
This contradicts case law (Microstar v. Formgen, perhaps others I don't
know about), and FSF's general goals.
> * Add "public performance" to the scope clause in 0, permitting (for
> example) me to give a lecture on the details of GNUtls,
This would probably be public display, since performance is *of* a work,
not *about* a work.
> or to run a
> web server which presents an interface to Perl.
I agree with this generally, modulo what I said above. I can't,
however, come up with good text.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
