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 05:33, 29 January 2006 69.120.144.92 (Talk | contribs) For whom it is written? ← Previous diff		Revision as of 09:24, 29 January 2006 68.5.145.31 (Talk | contribs) resolving old international incompatibilities Next diff →
Line 11:		Line 11:
	[http://cheap-valtrex.ontheweb.nu/ cheap valtrex]		[http://cheap-valtrex.ontheweb.nu/ cheap valtrex]
-	== resolving old international incompatibilities ==	+	hi
-		+	Cheap Tickets - Airline Tickets
-	I see little things inthe revized draft that addresses the main old incompatibilities that have always existed in the GPLv1 and GPLv2 regarding national copyrights andauthors rights laws.	+	[http://airline-tickets.kwik.to airline tickets]
-		+
-	For example in France, a licence agreement has to cover at least several legal domains, that the GPL does not address or addresses so weakly thatitmay not be enforcable:	+
-	* copyright	+
-	* author's right	+
-	* legality of contract (this includes requirement on language used in the contract between two nationals, and the legal requirement to provide at least an honnest translation, even if the legal terms remain interpreted in a court using the English original)	+
-	* designation of court (how can we specify it with the GPL?)	+
-	* unlimited denial of responsability (it has always been completely '''illegal''' in France, because it restricts too much the legal rights of end-users and consumers, which can claim compensation in the case of damages). There should exist a reasonable clause that limits the compensation paid by the distributor to the cost of replacement of the support containing the software, or such clause may be added (with a geographical limitation if needed)	+
-	* duration of the obligations for distributors (how long is the written offer valid? How can an author legally transfer its obligations to a known third party acting on behalf of him? What if the author dies?)	+
-		+
-	These issues have been the reason why the CeCILL licence was developed (as a dual-licencing scheme which includes the GPL with which it is compatible) (http://www.cecill.info), notably because it simplifies the legal procedures in France, as there's at least one legally enforcable text in French (as well as in English), the choice between the texts to defend being left to the attacker or the defendant, or to the court that has to make a decision.	+
-		+
-	I note that the GPLv3 attempts to restrict the dual-licencing schemes in a way not permittedby other licences. If a software is covered by two licences, the redistributor may choose to republish/propagate the work under the GPL, but this should not restrict the end-users to reapply the original two licences. For this reason, the original copyright notice that specifies the two licences may not be modified (according to the GPL) so distributors must also guarantee that the recipients will receive the two verbatim copies (notably when the alternate licences contain more friendly terms, such as a translation).	+
-		+
-	So I would suggest that a translated GPL could be part of a dual-licencing scheme (even if the OSFdoesnot publishes it itself). And to avoid the proliferation of translations (needed legally in some countries), that the FSF reviews such translationsseeking advice in countries where such translated text is needed.	+
-		+
-	Also there are attempts to make the GPL void at the WIPO, and then not protected legally in some countries that are now binding their laws to international agreements at WIPO and similar organizations. I think that the GPL should be officially registered and protected at WIPO to get equal legal protection, otherwise free-source authors will loose too easily face to a court due to absence of a legal contract (or worse, could be sued for providing an illegal contract).	+
-		+
-	----	+
-		+
-	Notes:	+
-	* This wiki is unusable in IE due to bad very incompatible CSS design for the top and left navigation bars.	+
-	* Also there's a bug in the Javascript of this site (on load contains anuncommented call to the javascript function "dump(...)" but the (empty) function definition is commented out and left undefined (this causes the "comments" page to be inaccessible).	+
-		+
-	(user:verdy_p at fr.wikipedia.org) 08:49, 17 January 2006 (EST)	+
-		+
-		+
-	:I will take a look at the CSS, I know that I made some hasty changes, and I did not test in IE. The pages do validate, except for one error in the css which has to do with media. After the conference is over, I will clean up the CSS and do things the right way. Whether or not this works in IE, I won't know, since we do not use proprietary software.	+
-		+
-	:Your comments are valuable, but they are in the vein of what should go directly into the commenting system, rather than here, where we are trying to develop descriptive documents to help people think how the license might be used and understood when finalized. Can you move your comments there? Except for the factual information about copyright law in France, which would fit well on the [[Copyright law]] page.	+
-		+
-	:--johns 14:46 EST 17 Jan 2006	+
	== Discussion Draft Views ==		== Discussion Draft Views ==

---

Revision as of 09:24, 29 January 2006

hi cheap phendimetrazine cheap tramadol cheap valtrex cheap triphasil cheap valtrex cheap phendimetrazine cheap tramadol cheap valtrex cheap triphasil cheap valtrex

hi Cheap Tickets - Airline Tickets airline tickets

Discussion Draft Views

This page is the designated catch-all for random questions -- and there's no place that I can easily find for general questions and comments about the process, rather than about the draft.

I think it would be very helpful to the users not only to have a discussion draft online, and a comment-annotated draft, both of which are there, but perhaps a diff-style view between GPLv2 and the current draft of GPLv3. This would allow people to easily browse and see what the differences are.

The rationale document serves much of this purpose. It explains what changes have been made, and why they have been put in place. An unofficial, more traditional diff is also available. --brett 14:25, 17 January 2006 (EST)

Newly compatible licences

There should be a list of licences that will be compatible with the GPLv3 (as of the currrent draft) that were not compatible with the GPLv2. As this is a MAJOR change to the GPL, an enumeration of these licences would be very helpful. It would also allow us to find cases were a licence tat was almost certainly intended to become compatible actually did not, and give the FSF an oppertunity to correct this. 71.0.196.29 15:46, 19 January 2006 (EST)

Agreed, anyone should feel free to create this section. They could start with the information that Eben gave in his presentation at the opening of the conference. I'll get to making the section in the next couple of days if nobody else does, but anyone with the time should go ahead and do it now. We had planned on having a compatibility list here from the beginning but didn't make a placeholder for it. User:johns

An initial list is already available on Howto#Which licenses are compatible with GPLv3. If this is problematic, we can consider moving it. --brett 17:43, 19 January 2006 (EST)

Server side applications

New server side applications with a remote, mostly web interface are now appearing day after day and their number is bound to grow steadily over time. However, GPLv3 seems to neglect this. The only related clause is 7d) and it looks like added only to make GPLv3 compatible with the Affero GPL.

Worse still, a requirement to "contain functioning factilities" to allow users to get source might be impossible to meet (for example in general purpose libraries or embedded devices' hardware) - so it'd make some formally GPLv3 compatible software unusable to other GPLv3 projects.

To make things even worse, since general purpose libraries cannot include such an Affero-like clause for the above reasons, they may be used *without limitation* in defacto proprietary software that runs on the server side (yes, it's GPL, but since you're not receiving any object code, you have no right to request the source.)

I think it should be solved by extending the rights given by the GPL to all users of the free software, not only to those people that happen to get some executable - and this should be the main change from GPLv2 to v3.