<novalis_dt> Let's get started.
<novalis_dt> Last meeting, we heard from pde.
<novalis_dt> He sent a bunch of stuff to the list.
<novalis_dt> Response has been minimal -- but it seems like nobody is in favor of expanding the reach of the DRM clause as far as maybe it could go.
<novalis_dt> Remember that we're fast approaching a deadline on issue identification.
<ZakGreant> It seems that doing so would weaken the GPL (and perhaps be against the spirit of the license)
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Weaken through reduced uptake and through forks at the v2 level.
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: started
<novalis_dt> We want V3 to be such a clear upgrade that the number of forks is tiny.
<novalis_dt> Compared to the other committees, this committee has identified a relatively small number of issues of interest.
<ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Righto
<ZakGreant> on both counts :^/
<ZakGreant> So...
<mhatta> Some Japanese companies are now analyzing the 1st draft and may publish a report soon
<novalis_dt> Please keep in mind that if an issue isn't identified and discussed, the v3 draft won't change.  Some advice from someone who has spent a lot of time dealing with RMS: you want two shots at this -- one to tell him what's wrong, and have him come up with a solution, and one to tell him what's wrong with the solution.
<novalis_dt> mhatta: Do you know which companies in particular?
<ZakGreant> has anyone done a full or partial sweep of the open issues - I have not.
<novalis_dt> Please also keep in mind that RMS doesn't follow modern technology like working programmers do.  I would be surprised to learn that he knows what JIT is, or what C++'s export keyword does, or what AJAX is.
<mhatta> novalis_dt: a group of companies
<novalis_dt> Which means that if you know something about a new area of technology, where new means within the last fifteen or so years, and you think it will be impacted by GPLv3, it would be wise to open an issue on that impact.
<novalis_dt> mhatta: Do you know what they are likely to say?  Do you know if they are members of Committee B?
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Some of the other committees did an exhaustive sweep of all comments by dividing the work up among members.
<novalis_dt> I'm not sure we need to do that.
<novalis_dt> But I do think it's worth looking at the comments on the hottest areas (note the new feature of the comment system)
<mhatta> I'm not sure now, but AFAIK they are interested in issues which will be likely arose in embedded environment
<dondelelcaro> I've been keeping up with all of the parent comments; unfortunatly, I haven't tracked the subsideary ones
<mhatta> They might contact me soon
<novalis_dt> Does someone want to volunteer to help Don track the subcomments?
<ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Ok. I will commit 1 hour per day to review for the next week.
<novalis_dt> mhatta: We would like to see that report, if possible.  Do you know if it will be translated?
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Thanks.
<ZakGreant> dondelelcaro: I can spend some of that time helping you
<mhatta> I urge them to publish English report, of course
<dondelelcaro> ZakGreant: thanks
<novalis_dt> mhatta: If not, can you give us a summary?
<mhatta> sure
<dondelelcaro> I'm not quite sure how to even get started on the subcomments yet, because they don't go out on the rss feed
<novalis_dt> mhatta: Thank you.
<novalis_dt> We're already preparing reports on the DRM aspects (the most commented on areas) -- I hope dondelelcaro will tell us about his progress there.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: I'll report that as a feature request. Atom can do comments -- would atom be OK with you?
<dondelelcaro> sure
<dondelelcaro> I just like mailboxes, 'cause they're easy to deal with and commit to subversion repositories
<novalis_dt> Dure.
<novalis_dt> Sure, even.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Orion says that your feature request is a highish priority for him.
<novalis_dt> Other hot areas: Section 5c -- formerly section 2c.  That's startup/other notices.
<fontana> I don't think that's getting much attention from the other committees, so that might be a good one for Committee D to look at.
<dondelelcaro> yeah, if it's easier, making a database dump would be fine too
<novalis_dt> I know this is an issue where GPLv2 was a bit weird.  I think the v3 draft wording is on the right track, but still not very readable.
<novalis_dt> Is there any discussion on these sorts of notices?
<novalis_dt> I should note that there are copyright law reasons to have these notices -- some laws prohibit the removal of "copyright management information." 
<dondelelcaro> I know we've had some discussion on them before in -legal...
<novalis_dt> This means that when someone does violate the GPL, if they don't remove the feature, they're detectable, and if they do remove the feature and are detected, they're in bigger trouble.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: was there a conclusion?
<novalis_dt> So, the term does support the copyleft (rather than being merely an annoyance)
<novalis_dt> I should also note that this is not necessarily the official view of the reasons for section 5c -- it is merely my view as an enforcer of the GPL.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Or even some interesting comments?
<dondelelcaro> the main concern about them is that it has to be appropriate for the end user to disable it; esp. in cases where the program is hooked up to output devices where it has character limitations
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: You're worried that someone will be forced to send the GPL by SMS?
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Do you think the present text does this?
<dondelelcaro> the other issue is that it should be restricted to content (like 2c is) rather than kept verbatim.
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I really haven't thought through the new text completely on it yet... it was just a concern that came up when we were discussing the 2c notice, in the context of Reiser, iirc.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: What about compatible licenses under section 7, which require verbatim?
<dondelelcaro> right, those there may be a problem with when the verbatim notice stops dealing factually with the narrow region of copyright/no warranty
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: A problem with compatible licenses, rather than with v3 itself.  OK, I can see why Debian would be upset about that.
<dondelelcaro> (FE, Hans Reiser was attempting to force the inclusion of the "thanks to sponsors" message by activating 2c)
<novalis_dt> Does someone want to volunteer to (a) read the comments and (b) read debian-legal's archives, and write up a recommendation about this section?
<novalis_dt> Or even write up a set of issues?  The recommendation can come later.
<dondelelcaro> and I think Schilling has done similar... but I have a hard time following his logic.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Schilling is the cdrecord guy?
<dondelelcaro> yeah.
<novalis_dt> ISTR his views were a bit out-of-mainstream
<novalis_dt> (to put it very politely)
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: that's putting it politicly. ;-)
<novalis_dt> Presently, Rickerby has no issues assigned.  Rickerby, do you feel like you understand the technical issues well enough to write this one up? 
<dondelelcaro> I don't think most people would ever care about that; I just want to avoid it getting locked into a GPLed work if possible
<ZakGreant> novalis_dt + dondelelcaro: Why don't I take writing up the issues and reading the comments. Someone else with more perspective on debian legal should probably read it for info.
<dondelelcaro> ok
<dondelelcaro> I've no problems with reading and commenting on drafts
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: I wasn't suggesting taking Debian-legal as gospel -- more as a source for suggestions.  
<dondelelcaro> yeah; we've got more than our fair share of wackos
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Can you ask debian-legal to put their comments in as comments?
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I've been doing that... hopefully some of them have listened. ;-)
<ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Right
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Thanks.  It's important to reach out to the people there who think hard about these issues
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: MJ Ray keeps hitting the accessibility issue, and the fact that B & C don't yet have membership information available
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: ITYM B -- C is available.
<dondelelcaro> but other than that, most of them seem willing
<novalis_dt> Also, we do support email comments, so I don't know what Ray is on about.
<dondelelcaro> hrm... that's what I thought too...
<dondelelcaro> what's the address for them?
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: I dunno.  It should be linked -- let me look.
<dondelelcaro> ah, I think I mentioned C mainly because it was missing e-mail addresses
<novalis_dt> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html
<novalis_dt> C was missing email addresses intentionally -- these people didn't agree to have their addresses posted publicly.
<dondelelcaro> right
<dondelelcaro> wimps. ;-)
<novalis_dt> I guess people can email the committees as a whole.  Then it's up to moderators to decide what to do with messages.  I'll post info to that effect unless fontana tells me that there's some reason not to.
<dondelelcaro> cool
<fontana> novalis_dt:  I see no reason not to try that out.
<dondelelcaro> anyway; unfortunatly, I'm grading a final right now, so I'd like to get back to it in ~ 30 minutes...
<novalis_dt> In section 6, the second-to-last paragraph is pretty hot.
<novalis_dt> That's "
<novalis_dt> Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying."
<novalis_dt> Would someone like to address the issues of this brings up of P2P/tor/SSL distribution?
<novalis_dt> er, s/of//
--> gerv (n=gerv@grmarkham.plus.com) has joined #committeed
<novalis_dt> OK, *this one* we can assign Rickerby to.
<novalis_dt> Rickerby: Can you do that?
<Rickerby> Novalis_dt: Sorry - in and out of my office. I'm happy to assist Zak in tha project as needed
<novalis_dt> Rickerby: OK, Zak will coordinate with you.
<Rickerby> Hold on, I'm still getting caught up ;-)
<Rickerby> OK. Sure. Happy to take on either
<novalis_dt> Rickerby: Since Zak wants the former, please take the latter.
<novalis_dt> Thanks.
<Rickerby> No problem.
<Rickerby> Ging to be AFK for a few minutes again. Clients. Sheesh.
<novalis_dt> I believe that handles most of the brightly colored areas that weren't already addressed.  It also provides pretty good coverage when taking into account the rest of the committees.
<novalis_dt> Are there any other sections anyone is interested in, even if they don't personally have time to address it?  Now is your chance.
<dondelelcaro> I've got a couple others, but I need to get a chance to write up a little bit about the issue first
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: OK, will you be ready to bring them up (if not resolve them) next week?
<ZakGreant> I will make a list of issues for next week as well. Sorry to not have been more on this.
<mhatta> btw, how do I know the issues are already taken by other committees or not
<dondelelcaro> I'll try.
<mhatta> I mean, which issues they are interested in
<novalis_dt> mhatta: If you look at a comment in the system, it should tell you.
<mhatta> I am running through comments now
<novalis_dt> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=192
<fontana> Even if another committee is considering an issue, you all should feel free to take it on too.
<novalis_dt> This one is taken by committee A.
<novalis_dt> "Current Committees:  A"
<fontana> The other committees haven't actually done much formal adoption of issues using the commenting system (though I think that may change soon)
<mhatta> oh I see
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant and Rickerby: When you start working on those issues, please do mark the appropriate comments as parents/children, and as issues, and as taken by committee D.
<novalis_dt> Does anyone have any more new issue business, or can we move on to reviewing progress on open issues?
<ZakGreant> novalis_dt, will do
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Thanks.
<ZakGreant> nothing here
<novalis_dt> OK, open issues
<novalis_dt> jblack: Any progress?
<novalis_dt> mako?  obra? sedwards?
<novalis_dt> Right. MAybe next week.
<novalis_dt> Anyone have any other comments for this week, or can we close?
<novalis_dt> OK, see you all next week.
<novalis_dt> Thanks for coming.
<ZakGreant> wait
<novalis_dt> oh, wait
<novalis_dt> Don't leave
<ZakGreant> Just typing :)
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: What's up?
<novalis_dt> Sorry, I've got an itchy trigger finger there.
<ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Can you elaborate briefly on your DMCA-related comments on message (just digging for the subj. bbias)
<ZakGreant> Subj. was:  GPLv3-draft1 and anti-circumvention laws
<novalis_dt> > I proposed that the license simply define "ordinary course of 
<novalis_dt> > operation"
<novalis_dt> > to include modification.
<ZakGreant> Date was March 14
<novalis_dt> THis one?
<ZakGreant> Righto
<novalis_dt> Right, so pde_was_stolen tells us that an access control measure is "effective" if it prohibits access in the ordinary course of operation
* dondelelcaro is offended ;-)
<novalis_dt> So, an if-then statement would do.
<dondelelcaro> err... ECHAN
<novalis_dt> But if we define the ordinary course of operation to include modification, then it wouln't.
<novalis_dt> (Maybe.)
<novalis_dt> So, that's why I made that proposal.
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Does that help?
<ZakGreant> So... if I understand, this is basically a DMCA-left type idea.
<ZakGreant> It seems sensible, but my knowledge of the DMCA is weak. I will go do some reading and then (perhaps) come back with some questions.
<ZakGreant> Did everyone else grok what Dave was proposing (or at least, better than I?)
<novalis_dt> Well, not so much a DMCA-left, which would imply using DMCA ideas against the DRMists.
<novalis_dt> Don't think I haven't considered using the takedown provisions on GPL violators, incidentally.  But we ultimately decided that the DMCA is so evil that we wouldn't touch even that bit of it.
<novalis_dt> It's more just to neutralize the DMCA.  So, strategically it's closer to the patent stuff than the copyright stuff.
<ZakGreant> Ok. I am still confused, but I will go do my research and get back to you.
<novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Great.
<novalis_dt> Ok, we'll adjourn now.