This website is an archive. It was used for drafting and public consultation on GPLv3 and version 3 of other GNU licenses which were published in 2007. For up to date information, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. For more information about this archive, see https://www.fsf.org/licensing/gplv3-archive

From GPLv3 Wiki

Revision as of 22:30, 16 January 2006 tilt (Talk | contribs) comment on previous edit, includes feedback error clarification ← Previous diff		Revision as of 12:02, 17 January 2006 majamba (Talk | contribs) Next diff →
Line 26:		Line 26:
	About the error: the feedback for user johns renders me a mailserver error: the recipient was not found in the database. -- Tilman		About the error: the feedback for user johns renders me a mailserver error: the recipient was not found in the database. -- Tilman
		+
		+	== For whom it is written? ==
		+
		+	Sorry to say but my short conclusio is: This draft sucks. Not because its purpose, intention or content is bad, but the language sucks. One of the main reasons why GPLv2 was so successfull is, because its a legal and social contract (or licence agreement or how ever you call) between two programmers, where programmer A says to programmer B you can use my stuff under this certain conditions (which are clearly described and are quite simple understandable).
		+
		+	But this draft is full of legal wording no programmer would ever use (what is an 'object code interpreter' supposed to be?) and full of weasel wordings like " This includes copying ... and in some
		+	countries other activities as well.".
		+
		+	Sorry, but if GPLv3 wants to be successfull it first an foremost has to be a clear and easy to understandable social contract between programmers with only limited or intermediate english language skills, which can uphold in court if necessary. But turning the GPL into an EULA, nobody reads, nobody (except some US lawyers) understands and nobody feels emotional and personal attached to it will simple ruin it.
		+
		+	So please use words like Source Code, Binaries, Compiler, Libraries,.. where every programmer know what they are and define them in a legally correct way instead of invention new wording like 'object code' and thrash everything that says 'this may be different in a different country'. The GPL is supposed to define how a world wide free software community is supposed to work together, not to be like a M$ EULA that say:"you have no rights, but if you happen do be in Germany you don't have rights too, but in a somewhat different form".
		+
		+	-- Andreas

---

Revision as of 12:02, 17 January 2006

Hello everyone,

I allow myself to cite the document

Title: GPLv3 Process Definition URL: [1]

from section "Introduction", fourth paragraph as follows:

Given the scale of revision it seems proper to approach the work through public discussion in a transparent and accessible manner.

I agree. So I start with a question: who wrote that document? I would have asked "johns" directly but the feedback form is broken.

-)

Regards, Tilman Kranz.

Who wrote it

I didn't write the document, I just posted it on the site. The document was written by Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman. (By the way, which feedback form was broken?)

--

Thank you for the clarification on "who is making the rules", I am perfectly satisfied. I have production code out there that will be covered by this and I went GPL explicitly for avoiding lack of transparency so please understand if I am very "picky" on that subject.

About the error: the feedback for user johns renders me a mailserver error: the recipient was not found in the database. -- Tilman

For whom it is written?

Sorry to say but my short conclusio is: This draft sucks. Not because its purpose, intention or content is bad, but the language sucks. One of the main reasons why GPLv2 was so successfull is, because its a legal and social contract (or licence agreement or how ever you call) between two programmers, where programmer A says to programmer B you can use my stuff under this certain conditions (which are clearly described and are quite simple understandable).

But this draft is full of legal wording no programmer would ever use (what is an 'object code interpreter' supposed to be?) and full of weasel wordings like " This includes copying ... and in some countries other activities as well.".

Sorry, but if GPLv3 wants to be successfull it first an foremost has to be a clear and easy to understandable social contract between programmers with only limited or intermediate english language skills, which can uphold in court if necessary. But turning the GPL into an EULA, nobody reads, nobody (except some US lawyers) understands and nobody feels emotional and personal attached to it will simple ruin it.

So please use words like Source Code, Binaries, Compiler, Libraries,.. where every programmer know what they are and define them in a legally correct way instead of invention new wording like 'object code' and thrash everything that says 'this may be different in a different country'. The GPL is supposed to define how a world wide free software community is supposed to work together, not to be like a M$ EULA that say:"you have no rights, but if you happen do be in Germany you don't have rights too, but in a somewhat different form".

-- Andreas