Discussion Committee B
Minutes for the phone meeting of 11 April 2006

Roll Call

Minutes from the meeting 28 Mar 2006.

These will continue to be available for review and comment until Friday.

Schedule

Necessary: full set of arguments for issues that to be addressed in next draft - needed by May 15

Convenient: some smaller matters closed by May 1.
What matters are candidates for 'closure' by May 1?

The committee output: arguments about an issue; brief summaries of positions.

Editors should proceed to propose drafts for their items. Editors may call on others for help.

Considered adding phone meetings (e.g., April 18, May 2), but concluded that informal discussions about particular topics would be more efficient than tring to insert another full-group meeting.

A face-to-face meeting was considered. We remain optimistic that this will not be needed.

C25: continue discussion introduced in the last meeting

What should someone getting a license be asking for?

What's "business ready"?

On this issue, this draft is not intended to be significantly different from GLP2.

Not intended to place a special burden on patent holders.

Why hasn't FSF published example license clauses?

Some will consider whether publication of model language would be useful and bring recommendation to the full group.

Began discussion of issues relating to complete corresponding sourcecode/scope/derivative works (C2, C3, C4, C6, C14, C15)

Begin with generalized version of C6.

Seems to be moving away from concept of one-to-one correspondence between object code being distributed and source code seems to be significant change. However, intent is not trying to have a significant different effect from GPL2.

Some examples that GPL3 should more clearly address than GPL2:

• shrouded source and obfuscation
• encryption keys

Linking

"install and run" --> Discussion of freedom to distribute broken/incomplete code.

"understand": goal is not to expand substantially what is required by GPL2.

• Might be helpful lay out a matrix of boxes/examples to see if there is a difference of understanding of policy intent.

Plan for next meeting:

• Continue with this last topic.
• Then DRM.