GPLv3

Comment 2980: What does this mean?

This term is not defined in the rest of the license, and its meaning is not obvious. What constitutes an "extension" of the covered work? Is that like extensions for Firefox? Or something else?

Probably "derivative works of the covered work".

Comment 2979: This definition is inconsistently formatted

The definition of Aggregate is inconsistent with the other definitions, in that it does not capitalise the word, and does not begin 'An "Aggregate" is...".

Comment 2978: Section titles need to be consistent

Sections 4 and 5 both apply to source code, and section 6 to object code. However, the title of 4 does not say so (whereas 5 and 6 do) and the title of 6 does not use the pre-defined term "object code". I suggest the following set of consistent and progressive titles: * 4] Conveying Verbatim Source Code

* 5] Conveying Modified Source Code

* 6] Conveying Object Code

While I normally like richer words, I would also suggest changing "verbatim" to "Unmodified", to parallel the "Modified" used for section 5.

Comment 2977: Definition is misplaced

All the definitions in section 0 are used throughout the license - except for this one, which is only used in section 11. Like other section-specific definitions, it should live in the appropriate section.

Comment 2976: Change most of this para to not be software-specific

It is great that changes have been made to make sure the GPL is applicable to non-software works. However, further work is required to generalise the language, particularly in the preamble. Editing such famous and evocative text feels like handling the crown jewels, but here is my attempt at para 2: Some licenses for software and other works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change them. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee that you and all other users have and keep those freedoms. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work whose authors commit to using it. You can apply it to your works too.

Comment 2975: Change this to "obtain" to make CD distribution easier

A common method of distributing free software is the handing out of CDs, for example at trade shows or conferences. With some sets of software, such as the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, there are a large number of CDs of source to go with the binaries. 6a) requires the targets of such distribution to compulsorily take source; 6b) may be impractical and 3 years is a long commitment to take on for a volunteer.

6d) is almost perfect, but it is focussed on network distribution. The generalisation of a single word in 6d) - "copy" -> "obtain" - makes it much easier to distribute free software in this way.

The CDs could then be distributed under 6d), with the "designated place" being the distribution location. There would be a pile of binary CDs and one of source; people could take the source CDs or not, as they chose.

Comment 2974: Multiple problems (free-ness, datedness)... [attempt 2]

As I understand it, the purpose of this section is to make sure that users of the program know their rights. However, I believe it has several practical and philosophical problems. In true lawyerly fashion, I will try multiple possible arguments (some of which have been made by others in this comments system): * 5d) is misplaced in section 5, given that it really relates to object code forms and yet 5 is a source code section. * 5d) is redundant, given the existence of section 5b) and the word "prominent" therein, and the existence of section 4, para 1 (which is applicable because of the inclusion of the terms of 4 into 5 - see 5 para 1). * Examples such as menus are bad because they will date the license and may force a particular inappropriate implementation of the underlying goal. * The current way 5d) is phrased is close to being (some would say, is) a restriction on modification, thereby violating freedom 1. * The current version of 5d) is more intrusive in that regard than the version in GPLv2, and applies in more circumstances. * 5d) should be written to focus on policy, not mechanism - as was done to turn the requirement to surrender keys into the requirement to provide Installation Instructions. I believe 5d) should be scrapped entirely but, if that is not to be, perhaps something like the following wording would achieve the goal while alleviating the problems in the latter half of the list: d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, users of each interface must have an easily-discoverable mechanism to display an appropriate copyright notice, and to be told: - the extent of the warranty, or lack of it, for the work; - that licensees may convey the work under this License; - how to view a copy of this License. However, if the work has interactive interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your changes need not make them comply. This rephrasing removes most things that might be construed as a restriction on modification, and becomes solely an expression of policy - you must make users aware of their rights.

[Sigh] Is it even possible to lay out a comment in an orderly fashion? Ignore this one and use this URL instead: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-3&id=2972

Despite using more carriage returns here, that one is more readable!

Comment 2973: There's no guidance on allowed markup, so testing...

Paragraph List 1 List 2 List 3 another paragraph with a carriage return and another. Text

More text Yet more text

More text 2

To get paragraphs to work right, use exactly 2 line-breaks between paragraphs, and avoid spaces at the begining or end of paragraphs, or between the line-breaks.

[2 line-break follow]

[1 line-breaks follows] [3 line-breaks follow] [1 space, 2 line-breaks follow] [2 line-breaks, 1 space follow] [1 line-break, 1 space, 1 line-break follow] [fin]

Comment 2972: Multiple problems (free-ness, dated-ness)...

As I understand it, the purpose of this section is to make sure that users of the program know their rights. However, I believe it has several practical and philosophical problems. In true lawyerly fashion, I will try multiple possible arguments (some of which have been made by others in this comments system): * 5d) is misplaced in section 5, given that it really relates to object code forms and yet 5 is a source code section. * 5d) is redundant, given the existence of section 5b) and the word "prominent" therein, and the existence of section 4, para 1 (which is applicable because of the inclusion of the terms of 4 into 5 - see 5 para 1). * Examples such as menus are bad because they will date the license and may force a particular inappropriate implementation of the underlying goal. * The current way 5d) is phrased is close to being (some would say, is) a restriction on modification, thereby violating freedom 1. * The current version of 5d) is more intrusive in that regard than the version in GPLv2, and applies in more circumstances. * 5d) should be written to focus on policy, not mechanism - as was done to turn the requirement to surrender keys into the requirement to provide Installation Instructions.

I believe 5d) should be scrapped entirely but, if that is not to be, perhaps something like the following wording would achieve the goal while alleviating the problems in the latter half of the list: d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, users of each interface must have an easily-discoverable mechanism to display an appropriate copyright notice, and to be told: - the extent of the warranty, or lack of it, for the work; - that licensees may convey the work under this License; - how to view a copy of this License.

However, if the work has interactive interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your changes need not make them comply.

This rephrasing removes most things that might be construed as a restriction on modification, and becomes solely an expression of policy - you must make users aware of their rights.

Comment 2971: This breaks the "hardware reseller" business model

Someone reselling hardware accompanied by a section 6b) written offer is in trouble. They cannot pass on the offer, because that's allowed only "occasionally and noncommercially". So they must either make their own offer (and set up facilities to fulfil it) or download the source and burn it to a CD and put it in the box!

Details: Let's imagine I'm in the business of buying consumer hardware in bulk and reselling it - a common business model. If I buy a pallet of routers which contain GPLv3 software and come with a 6b) written offer, can I resell them as-is? My reading of the definition of "propagate" and "convey" leads me to believe that this reselling is "conveying", which I may only do under one of sub-clauses a) to e) of section 6.

I am not covered by 6b) because it's not my offer, and I'm not offering support or spare parts. What about 6c)? The current wording suggests no, because it permits such conveying only "occasionally and non commercially", and my conveying is regular and commercial. Do I have to download the source, burn to a CD and pop it in the box (thereby being covered by 6a) before I can resell it? Surely the license must make it possible for me to merely pass on the boxes as I receive them.

My suggestion is add another exception to the "occasionally and non commercially" one, to permit passing on copies you received. One might phrase a modified 6c) as follows: c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only if you received the object code with such an offer (in accord with subsection 6b) and either: - you are conveying copies that were conveyed to you; or - your conveying is occasional and non-commercial.

So the extra exception permits a high-volume and commercial business model reselling items, yet one cannot use it to increase the number of copies the offer covers. The danger of a large increase of this type and the consequent unfair effect on the person making the written offer is, as I understand it, the reasoning behind the "occasional and non-commercial" wording.

As noted elsewhere, I believe [IANAL] that reselling a physical copy of the software, especially one that is embodied in a device, does not require copyright permission and therefore is not propagating or conveying in the language of this license, at least in the large part of the world where exclusive rights reserved under copyright are exhausted by first sale.

/ I am not covered by 6b) because it's not my offer, and I'm not offering support or spare parts. /

You don't need to offer support or spare parts, rather your offer for source needs to remain valid (beyond the initial 3 years) for as long as you do offer support or spare parts, if you do. In any case, it would suffice to simply write your own offer for source, and convey it with the product. However, I do wonder if this should be required.

/ My suggestion is add another exception to the "occasionally and non commercially" one, to permit passing on copies you received. /

No, if the right to resell is to be added to an existing clause, then it needs to be 6b, not 6c, for two reasons. For one, 6c allows non-commercial redistribution for works received under 6b only. Thus if the right to resell were combined with 6b, then the right to non-commercial redistribution would only be available to resellers--who have no use for it. The other reason is that the right to resell should be chainable. The product may pass through several owners before reaching the consumer, so the right to resell should be allowed to parties receiving from either the original conveyor, or another reseller.

/ As noted elsewhere, I believe [IANAL] that reselling a physical copy of the software, especially one that is embodied in a device, does not require copyright permission and therefore is not propagating or conveying in the language of this license, at least in the large part of the world where exclusive rights reserved under copyright are exhausted by first sale. /

I'm not really up with copyright law, so I'll take your word. But presumably this won't help in the small part of the world where copyright law doesn't work this way. Also, 6c is valid only "if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b", which presumably hardly anyone does (since most people receive the object code through a reseller instead). And last but not least, even if the license actually works as you describe, it is very misleading, so it really ought to be corrected for this reason, if no other.

My preference would be to avoid the problem of inconsistent copyright rules in different locations by having the license explicitly say that reselling of physical copies, whether fixed in media or in devices, is permitted and that the license requirements apply only to the first sale of the physical copy.

/ My preference would be to avoid the problem of inconsistent copyright rules in different locations by having the license explicitly say that reselling of physical copies, whether fixed in media or in devices, is permitted and that the license requirements apply only to the first sale of the physical copy. /

That sounds reasonable, and it might be neater that way.

Actually, I think there could be another issue here too.

The initial distributor is required to convey copies of the work with an offer for source, but is there anything preventing resellers from, e.g. selling that offer seperately?

Presumably any reseller who had access to the source code would be able to redistribute it under the usual terms of the license; they just wouldn't have any obligation to do so.

I agree with the general point although I hope that sepreece is right that this requires no copyright permission. It might be a good idea to clarify this in the GPL lest some overcautious used computer vendor delete Linux from the hard drives of his machines without need. In any case I think that focusing on parties that have actively modified a work may be a good way to deal with this issue. Usually it's those parties that make trouble. Parties that only redistribute unmodified are seldom a danger to free software.

Comment 2866: Three years is a long time

When the GPL was written, software evolved at a slower pace than it does now. GNOME makes an entire new release every six months.

Given the new stipulation that source has to be available for as long as support is, I think we could reduce the absolute time.

Comment 2865: Focus on results, not mechanism

Suggestion: focus on results, not mechanism. Rewrite this section to define what the result must be, not how to achieve it. E.g.:

If the work has interactive user interfaces a user must be conveniently able to view an appropriate copyright notice and a copy of this License, and to discover there is no warranty for the work (unless you provide one) and that licensees may convey the work under this License.

However, if the work has interactive interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your changes need not make them comply."

Comment 2864: Definitions are in a weird order

The definition of "System Libraries" itself uses two definitions; "Major Components" (defined after it) and "Standard Interface (defined before it). There should be a consistent rule that terms are defined before they are used, unless a circle has to be broken.