GPLv3

Comment 1035: Which author

It should be made clear, which author that is. If there are 50 people working on the software they all must content. Therefore if this should be done the program should name the contact person. All else will not working out.

Comment 1047: GPL/FSF trademarked?

Is it prevented that someone other than FSF creates a license named "GPLv4"? (making it possible to influence GPLv3 releases software). Or if this is prevented by trademarks of "GPL" and/or "Free Software Foundation", will these trademarks work in every country?

Yes: it says "... published by the Free Software Foundation"

Comment 1053: Campaign (instead of license)?

It is important to notify people that there will be no freedom of software if all the hardware will be restricted.

Why do we have some campaign against DRM?

Campaign is better way (than including a section here), because I'm not sure how the software license is effective to non-software things.

Let's do that.

Everything is software.

There is no clear separation between programs and non-programs.

A PostScript file is a program. Hell, even a BMP file can be considered a program like: paint this pixel in blue, the next also, the next in green, etc. etc. etc. There are literate programming toolkits where the program you write is embedded in a literary work. There are books that have source code on it; there are docs that are generated from source code.

google for "debian free documentation guidelines" and you'll understand what I mean.

Comment 1063: compatibility with version 2

Is it the case, as it appears to be, that version 3 is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL? If a program is specifically licensed under version 2 (only -- not later versions) and another program is specifically licensed under version 3, can a third program be written that includes modifications of both of the earlier programs? I am assuming that the mixing process is sufficiently thorough that the entire third program would be considered a derivative work of both the earlier programs. In such a case, under what license could the third program be distributed? Each license form seems to me to require that it be used, to the exclusion of the other. It seems to me that the new program could be distributed neither under version 2 (since that license lacks terms required when propagating a derivative of a program licensed under version 3), nor under version 3 (since that license adds terms not permitted when propagating a derivative of a program licensed under version 2).

Works licensed under version 2 can be relicensed under version 3 if the license for the work specifies licensing under version 2 or any greater version. The language used to describe the constraints of licensing here are actually remarkably clear.

If program A is licensed under only GPLv2 and program B is licensed under only GPLv3, one cannot combine parts of A and B to make a new program. When GPLv4 comes out one will face a similar problem when dealing with programs licensed only under GPLv3.

The way to prevent this is to license under GPLv2 or any later version. Then derivative works or distributions of the covered program can be distributed under a later GPL, no matter what version that is.

Comment 1106: Can't distribute if *someone* brought patent suit?

What if someone brought suit for patent infringement and thus lost their license to modify the program? Am I, unrelated with the suit, required to stop distributing the program, because now I can't guarantee any more that whoever obtains the program downstream will have the right to modify it? If the patent aggressor obtains the program from me, or from any third party that got it, directly or indirectly from me, unless that granted the aggressor permission to modify the program again, it seems to me that I'd have to stop distributing the program. I don't think this is intended, since it is so demanding on distributors, but enabling the aggressor to obtain a new license so easily doesn't appear to be enough of a punishment.

Comment 1107: patent-encumbered free software in patent-free regions?

What if I do *not* have a license for a patent because I don't need one? Must I refrain from distributing the program just because others elsewhere that might be downstream from me might not have the right to obtain it, run it, modify it or distribute it because they are in regions where the patent encumbrance is in effect?

I'd say, "indirectly" should be explained some more. Does it mean, if someone in a country in which there is a patent on a part of the Software (i.e.: the USA) could somehow get it, I may not distribute the program to someone else, who could pass it on? That way, the GPLv3 would have the effect of making US patent law affecting europe, which can't be intended.

Comment 1153: more than GNU

As the GPL extends to more than GNU it is not needed anymore to refer to GNU. Further the acronym is not explained, so it only adds confusion

The GNU GPL is the general public license for the GNU Project, and it can be used by anyone. However, there are other general public licenses, so it needs a unique title. Explaining that GNU means "GNU's not Unix" is hardly adequate, and adding Stallman's stock explanation of the GNU project to the license would be overboard (Off-topic: Debian will be censoring Stallman's GNU explanation article all together from the main distribution).

Comment 1158: source code defintion

must be a better definition available

Comment 1163: unpractical

It is common use to take code and share code between gpled software. It is against the spirit of "sharing" to require permission. So the basic condition here is that the license is GPLv3 incompatible.

While the exeptions is explained here it is unsystematic, because it does not explain the common use.

Regarding non-FSF copyright holders they can agree on whatever they want when asked for permission, not only on "free software" reuse.

Comment 1182: 3rd parties

third parties = ???

You probably mean that as a user of a gpl covered work I am not responsible to the compliance of another user.

Third party should get clarified.

Comment 1183: free status

new terminology, == freedoms ??

Comment 1197: Automatic termination?

Automatic termination contradicts section 8[4]. If automatic termination is intended here, then it needs to be mentioned in 8[4].

Comment 1199: Termination -- second thoughts

Some violations of the GPL can be prosecuted under copyright law without the need to terminate the license. (But not all violations, contrary to my previous thoughts.) Where possible, this would be the better way.

If possible, it would be best to limit termination to situations where someone is violating the GPL through action (rather than inaction), and clearly doing so intentionally (rather than accidentally). Specifically this may include suing for patent infringement, suing someone for by-passing DRM on their own computer, or suing on the grounds that there is some implied warranty.

In these situations, rights under clauses 2 and 6 could be terminated, but not those under clauses 4 and 5, because these are required to fullfil obligations incured under clause 6 (as I mentioned previously).

If there is a need to terminate rights for breach of clause 6, then I suggest that it may be better to terminate only the rights (or just some of the rights) given in clause 6.

Comment 1202: no accept

Together with sentence 3 here it is not understood.

Please resort the thoughts

Comment 1203: using

What about "using" the software?

Comment 1217: kernel

Is kernel understood by everone?

kernel here means Operating System kernel, probably "kernel" is broader

Comment 1219: Perspective

note that the whole license is written from the user/recipient perspective. Here it is not said that the user has to obey to these restrictions. "is restricted in certain countries" means. you may not use it in certain countries.

Comment 1247: Source code

source code, check for polysemic statement

Comment 1260: source

should be made clear that the source code enables you with the right to repair it yourself.

Comment 1319: Headline again?

It repeats the headline from above. It is not clear whether the preamble belongs to the license or not.

That's how the plain text format of the GPLv2 reads, also.

Comment 1320: improve clarity

The whole paragraph could be reworded in a fashion that makes it more clear. "which enables them to do so" is very unclear.

Comment 1321: See definition

See definition of "You" in section 0

Comment 1322: Legal definition

See legal definition of You in section 0

Comment 1326: Omitting parts of the work should also be regarded as "modification".

I think, "modification" should also include omitting parts of the work, which is currently not the case. (In it's current form, this sentence could be understood as a redefinition of the term "modification".)

Comment 1330: There no such conditions in section 2

What conditions do you mean? I think, there is only one condition to modify the Program, in section 2: that is about private modifying. But I think that section 5 is not about private modifying.

Sorry, I take back. I see - there is the condition about suiting fot patent infringement in section 2.

Comment 1331: add: "as it were a verbatim copy ..."

I think it is good to state: "..., as it were a verbatim copy of the Program's source code as you receive it".

Comment 1339: physical medium e.g. CD-ROM

Give CD-ROM as an at-the-time-of-writing example of a "durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange". This will help prevent the meaning from being (un)intentionally misconstrued.

CDs are commonly supported not only by computers, but stereos, videos and gaming consoles; computers are now widespread; and the serious contenders in the next-physical-distribution-medium war are backwardsly compatible with CD-ROM. I suspect this means CD-ROMs be supported for longer than the previous standards, and when they are no longer supported, they will have been firmly etched in public memory (so will still serve as a well understood example).

Comment 207: What if he's dead?

If the original copyright holder dies and new laws are created, should the current maintainer be allowed to add limitations?

This will probably only be used when the software is initay created, and anyway, nobody has yet used this.

Comment 224: Inclusive listing

Copyright holders should also be allowed to list only the countries that distribution is permitted in, rather than be forced to list every country in which distribution is prohibited.

Comment 249: I don't understand the needing

for the licenser to know whereabouts on the earth his program violates any patents or copyrights, and to have to make a list of countries in advance. Should every small company and programmer need to have a handful of lawyers behind, not only to protect him/her, but also for counselling and legal researching? Isn't it enough with "Liberty or Death for the Program" to express it without charging the people with tasks that they shouldn't undertake? Are we not accepting the game and rules of this Lawyersphere? Must somebody know every single law in every country of the world, in order to license his/her program with GPL v3?

Second. If a program violates a law in an area or country, its mere existence is already in some places out of law. Should we publicly recognise, by means of this list, that we created or posses such a piece? Isn't it against ourselves to proclame our guiltiness?

And finally, a suggestion. Wouldn't it be possible to use the license or any other trick to reverse the patents as it has already been done from copyright into copyleft? Original comment here by miguelsan (in Spanish): http://barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=06/01/16/2312237&mode=thread

This section is deleted. It will be revived only if there is a demand for it.

RMS: This is a non-issue. Somebody failed to read the rational. No need to classify this into an issue.

Comment 255: non-flashable chips

This could be construed as saying that the executable need not be accompanied with source if the executable is distributed in such a way that copying is impossible. For example, sticking GPL'ed software on a non-flashable chip in a toaster.

In what sense does the toaster purchaser not receive a copy?

Comment 266: What about no-copyright zones?

What about countries without copyright, or without the restrictive copyright law as we know it? This might soon be a reality.

For a somwhat contrived example but one that would work today, if I'm based in Canada, where the american short film _Steamboat Willie_ is available in the public domain (still under copyright in the US), can I use that movie as part of my program? What happens when US citizens want to use the program?

Comment 362: globally permissible?

as to my knowledge, it is not permissible to exclude oneself from providing warranty in some countries, even within the EU. probably add something in the lines of '..as permissible by local law" on order not to void other terms of the license?

Comment 425: Add "Warning:"

This line should probably be prefixed by "Warning:" to help make it stand out just a bit more.

No, this section is superfluous. Since the GPL makes it clear on several occations that the software doesn't come with any kind of warranty of any kind, whe do we note this specifically at all?

Comment 452: propagation and receiving copies

How can you propagate a program if the people you propagate it to can't have the right to receive it?

Propagate is broadly defined as any activity restricted by copyright law. This is intended to permit things like letting your friend use programs on your computer, without actually giving her copies of them. Because allowing someone else to run a program is restricted by copyright law in some places, believe it or not.

Comment 457: free software combined with proprietary

If I make "in house" modifications by adding our companies proprietary software, then create CGI programs using the pieced together software, then execute that program on an in house computer and charge a subscription fee for access. Am I "distrubuting" or "propogating" the program or otherwise violating the GPL.

Um. No. Why would it? (it's certainly not prohibited now).

You can do what you suggest in the general case, but there is a one exception. If the software you use is lisenced under a vanilla verison of the GPL, then no pb. However, you should note that in section 7d gives an option to the software's author. He may add a requierement that the program "contain functioning facilities that allow users to obtain copies of the program's Complete Corresponding Source Code" (current wording). If that is used (and only in that case), you would either have to renounce to your service, or to GPL the parts you added.

Comment 476: Programs without _any_ display

What if the program works in environment that does not have ANY display device, such as some embeded systems? But instead it hase a voice-control and contacts with user via sound... it would be great if such a condition cover more, or any program-user interaction, not only "displaying" things.

Comment 478: Fair use

What is "fair use"? We do not need this clause IMHO, it provides nothing but confusion.

US legal concept which permits you to use copyrighted works in some ways without asking anyone for permission. Equivalent in the UK is "fair dealing". The whole point of this clause is "If your copyright laws are smart enough to permit you to do some stuff without asking permission, we are not going to change that!" (Because in the US licenses *can* change that.)

Comment 510: No Warranty

The wording scattered throughout the draft regarding warranties is less than consistent. In some areas it is stated strictly that there is "no warranty", while in others a warranty may be optionally provided, and in still others it is implied that a warranty may have been included. Consistency is key.

Comment 588: Complete Corresponding Source Code

My concern is that what about trying to initially open closed code bases where the entire code can not be opened. Wouldn't this prohibit the release of partial code under GPLv3 while the gaps were filled in?

This is no obstacle for the copyright holders of a proprietary program to release part of it as free software. Since they are the copyright holders, they are not bound by the requirements of the GPL---for the parts they own. If they *don't* have copyrights on all the code, then this clause is *good*---it forbids releasing only part of a derivative work as free software while keeping other parts proprietary.

Comment 624: Do not assume implicitely that "software patents" exist everywhere

When relating to "software patents", it should always be said something meaning "in geographical regions where software patents exist...". "Software patents" do not exist everywhere and the license should remember each time "software patents" are dealed with this matter of fact.

Isn't this left up to local patent law?

Comment 636: Trademarks?

Are GPL, GNU General Public License, GPLv3 or any other related terms trademarked? I see that the license is copyrighted. I also see that changing "it" is not allowed. Can someone copy it, change their copy, and call it GPLv4 (or even GPLv3) or some such because GPLv4 is not trademarked?

Comment 642: What if it is specifically stated?

What happens to this passage if the safety testing *is* specifically stated? Is this provision removed or is it left here with an addendum?

If it is removed, what about modifications to the program? (An unmodified propogation obviously is still safety tested.)

Comment 645: does not protect the added parts

There are three relevant bodies of work. First is the work governed by this license, the work as to which the person referred to as "you" is being granted many rights. Second is the parts that "you" adds. Third is other code released in conjunction with the second category. Retaliation is permitted for lawsuits targetting the first and third categories, but not the second, which is the category of greatest interest to "you" who developed those parts.

Parts you added are just parts.

Comment 650: What does this mean ?

Section 3 is written in such a convoluted way that I do not know how it is to be commented. So I am commenting this paragraph instead.

An important issue is whether DRM can be implemented as free software. The issue is double: - will the legislator make it legal to implement DRM with publicly available source code. - what free software licences will be compatible with such an implementation (typically BSD or GPLv2 are).

Of course, it would be best not to have DRM, but that is not necessarily for the programmer to decide.

Regarding the second point, as drafted in this paragraph, I do not know what is the meaning of: "from which escape is forbidden"

1. If the source code is provided, one can escape by modifying the program. But is this considered an available escape by the the GPLv3, since many people cannot program ? 2. What if modifying the program to escape is permitted by law ? 3. What if it is not, but one can still do it ? (the text does not say legal escape) 4. What if modification is permitted by law, but not dissemination of the modified program that escapes the DRM ? 5. What if law permits anything, but the computer has TCPA like features that prevent running non certified code (one could escape by getting another computer, or disabling the hardware check with a disruptor (soon to be invented) ) 6. What if all computers on the market are TCPA controlled ?

Remember that there are illegal programs, and that any GPL program can be modified/derived into an illegal one.

Are this provision and section 3 of the licence compatible with clause 6 of the Open Source Definition.

Certainly DRM can be implemented as free software, by using TCPA or the like. The keys would be managed by an external program that would decide whether to give the keys to the free software. Only verified binaries would have access to the keys and thus will be able to decrypt content. You may change the software to not perform any action not wanted, but the new compiled binary would not be able to access the content. I would argue in that case that the free software is not *part of* the system, and it is not necessary to have any key in order to install it, so it would be valid to use such a scheme. Hence, the paragraph would not have any effect on that type of DRM implementation.

On the other hand, if we consider that the GPLv3 effectively prohibits the stated example, it would also prohibit the use of an e-mail client that needs to recover the private key from an extern smartcard where the smartcard decides whether to deliver the key or not (for example, the user wants to decide which binaries to allow for reading his private key so it is not used by some spyware). Is that really what is intended?

Comment 655: Worldwide is too small

May I charge for a patent license when the covered work is used on the moon, a spacecraft a another body than Earth? If I create my covered work on Mars may I charge a patent license fee for users on Earth?

Comment 663: license ..license

automatically receives a license ... subject to this License

"receives a license" sounds to me like the recipient gets a GPL sent from the original licensor.

Proposal: the recipient automatically receives the rights from the original licensors, to propagate and modify that work, subject to this License,

Comment 664: There is no World Patent

Patent law is territorial. There is no World Patent.

Comment 665: concludend patent license?

Does this mean a concludend license by the act of distribution? I strongly believe that a formal licensing separate from the GPL is needed here.

Comment 670: Make software patents an exception.

Part of the license dealing with "software patents" should be removed from the main flow of the text. Indeed, it assumes those ugly things exist everywhere and give them credits. "software patents" have to be restricted explicitely to geographical regions where they are *still* enforceable.

Comment 672: what does this mean internally to a company ?

it would seem that the text is individual-driven (or perhaps I am reading it that way). What does it mean to "propagate" in the context of a company ? example: a company modifies the software, then distributes it to ist employees - is this propagating ?

If it is not, then, could one circumvent the GPL by starting a membership society, and distributing modifid software *without sources* to all its members ?

Comment 752: want to make clear there are no exceptions worldwide, suggest rephrase

Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden in any one country.

Comment 819: Bad for security or safety-related software.

Please see my long comment above. Safety or security-related software _must_ be standard. This may _require_ digital signing or other DRM-like restrictions. This passage will perversely discourage the use of free software in those applications.

Comment 841: Seems harmless

This short untitled section seems harmless. I don't know if is useful, but it looks in line with the other disclaimers of warranty and/or liability. It could maybe titled "NOT NECESSARILY FOR SAFETY CRITICAL SYSTEMS" or something similar...

Comment 850: Reference

Reference NO WARRANTY section 16 should be added.

Comment 853: Redundant

This is covered in an earlier section.

What section?

Comment 855: future license changes

This concerns me as being similar to a "conditions may change without notice" clause. I'm troubled with the idea that if a program is licensed under GPL X and then GPL Y comes out that is somehow incompatible with X in mt situation then I'm vulnerable to unknown changes in the future. I think that the license should not be automatically modifyable by future changes.

If you do not like the possibility of future GPL versions giving away privileges that you want to control, use a specific version (in this case, GPL Version 3) in the notice that specifies which licence applies.

This is a common question. Note that the FSF is under contractual obligation to it's authors to maintain the terms as "similar in spirit". At the point where RMS did go mad and simultaneously take over the SCOTUS so he could overrule those agreements, we could still simply change terms and distribute under the older versions of the license. Unless he also simultaneously became US Commander in Chief, in which case I guess we would be lost anyway. :-)

This is the position with regards to GPL 2.0 licenced code that doesn't include the term 'and future versions'. The result is that GPL 2.0 and GPL 3 are incompatible (because there are now more requirements) and as such GPL 3 code needs to be relicenced, however it is unclear to some who can re-licence, the original copyright owners or anyone that receives the source given that they have all the rights handed to them.

We may end up with the confusion that is caused because of the scheme known as dual or multiple licencing wherein a source is licenced using multiple licences (that themselves may be incompatible) and the user chooses the licence which best suits their purpose.

Comment 871: What about public usage of the program?

AFAIK v3 does not give the right for users of a gplv3 program to receive its source code. Only distribution of the program is covered by v3, maybe public usage (or providing access to / services with [in whole or in part, using the program, and whatnot] etc.) should be too?

That can be done by using section 7 d) and requiring that the program provide users with access to the source code. Would that best be done with boilerplate in the source:

Copyright (c) GonzoVision 2045 This program may be copied according to the terms of the GPLv3 or greater, except that, according to section 7d) it is required that the work contain functioning facilities that allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding Source Code.

for example???

Comment 915: I really don't think very much of this use of the word propogate. In general courts dislike neolgisms and it gives them the opportunity to create their own definition rather than the one intended.

Rather the more general terms of Publish and Distribute should be used as their definitions are well known and can be explained simply rather than the rather awkward english of propogate since propogate's original meaning was to breed and the idea of programs having some kind of monosexual reproduction whilst thought provoking gets in the way of the purpose of the licence which is to be clear and in simple english.

While Publish and Distribute have well defined legal meanings in the US, they don't necessarily match the meanings of such legal terms in other countries or in other languages. The adoption of a word that does not have a well-defined legal meaning, such that we can provide our own definition within the license, is an effort to make the GPL an international license.

How does this interact with peer-2-peer distribution mechanisms (or for that matter ftp mirrors) In particular are intermediate nodes of a distribution mechanism taken as being required to provide source later? It doesn't seem necessarily a fair requirement to impose.

Comment 917: Is the GPL irrevocable?

Questions have been raised as to whether the GPL is irrevocable. In particular, the copyright holder of a GPL-covered work might assign the copyright to another party afterwards. Is it possible for this other party to revoke the GPL for that work? Another issue is about whether the GPL gives the necessary amount of consideration. It is said that this consideration is a requirement for forming contracts. See http://lwn.net/2000/0330/

According to section 9 of GPLv3, the GPL is "Not a Contract". This would suggest that the requirements for forming contracts aren't applicable.

Also, the definition of Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) says that "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.". So, I would hope that the GPL cannot be revoked by the licensor outside of the licensee doing something wrong because then people's rights under the license could be yanked away from them even if they did nothing to deserve such treatment.

Comment 993: There is no "a software"

I feel "most software" implies there are multiple software(s?), as if "a software" would exist. License apply to "software packages" or "software products". "The licenses for most software products are..." would be more appropriate, I think. I'm not a native speaker so I could just as well be wrong.

Software is used here as a mass noun, as opposed to the typical count noun. English has a category of nouns like software, bread, junk, or water, which are grammatically neither strictly singular nor strictly plural. They are used for objects without definable boundaries (water, junk), or where the boundaries are not useful for discussing the object (bread). The quantifiers "more", "less", "a lot of," "much", etc are used as for plural nouns. "Many" and "few", however, cannot be used, since these refer to numbers of objects.

Software, in the overwhelming majority of dialects of English, is a mass noun.

Comment 998: User and/or Owner?

Microsoft has already implemented something called "Digital Rights Management" . Now we see the GPLv3 draft talk about "Digital Restrictions Management". I assume the method in Digital Rights Management is to talk about what the Rights of the User are, and with Digital Restrictions Management to talk about what the Restrictions of the User are. Make sure to understand that DRM Rights from Microsoft always are about the User. With the GPLv3 Digital Restrictions Management must apparently state something about Restrictions laid upon a User but also Owner of the GPL-ed software. The Digital Restrictions Management paragraph however only talks about restrictions on Users. So what about Owners of GPL-ed software. If i recall correctly with GPLv2 any User of GPL-ed software, is automaticly a Owner, after agreeing with the GPL.

So again, If i own a GPL-ed piece of software, i would be tempted to remove any DRM (any flavor) from it, and resume business and use of the GPL-ed software as usual. Somehow, of course, thats not how things work. a DRM restriction normally will only descend from a 3rd party to the GPL-ed software which touches upon the legal field of the DRM infused apparatus. This can be a PC with a TCPA BIOS, or a appliance with DRM enforced inside its hardware. So my suggestion: Its probably time to also start, besides the GPL licensed software, a new branch called "Open Hardware" in which no such DRM restrictions are enforced by the Manufacturer. If a local government of a souvereign state still demands a DRM-ed scheme for computing on PC's or embedded hardware, its the Manufacturers decision to implement DRM or not. I would suggest to not install GPL-ed software on any legal DRM enforced apparatus. If one has to (lack of Open Hardware or other reasons) use GPL-ed software on DRM enforced equipment, make sure the needed software part, which implements DRM, is not a part of your GPL-ed software. Any combined works of GPL-ed software plus DRM software, should simply not fall under the GPL.

So can we still be free to run our free software as approved by the FSF? Well just make sure, that Open Hardware is available.