Personal tools

Talk:Main Page

From GPLv3 Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 10:25, 15 August 2006
asac (Talk | contribs)
rational 1st draft
← Previous diff
Revision as of 13:16, 18 August 2006
morelp (Talk | contribs)
Sandbox
Next diff →
Line 112: Line 112:
If this is superseded, please point to the equivalent of the 2nd draft. Thanks! If this is superseded, please point to the equivalent of the 2nd draft. Thanks!
 +
 +== Sandbox ==
 +
 +I've noticed that there is no sandbox. It might be usefull for people (like me) unfamiliar with mediawiki.
 +No need for complex scripts to reset it, maybe just a page. Though, it might put garbage in the full text search results.
 +Would it bother someone if I (or someone else) create a page for this purpose?
 +
 +--[[User:morelp|morelp]] 09:16, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:16, 18 August 2006

Contents

Vandalism

Hi,

I just noticed some vandalism by user julli9. He edited a number of pages in the Test Cases tree, replacing the content with spam links on July 4th. Maybe you guys could write a script to revert all of his changes?

For example: http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ineffective_Technological_Protection_Measure&action=history http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Cases&action=history

There seem to be a bunch more.

Stefanie


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.

Thank you for your suggestions. I encourage you to please submit them to the comment system, where they can be reviewed by discussion committees and handled appropriately. --brett 10:35, 29 January 2006 (EST)

In fact, section 2 seems to almost explicitly allow such "defacto proprietary" software with "Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided it does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies." unless their specific license contains an Affero-like clause. --jsz 21:45, 22 February 2006 (CET)

I agree with this section -- attention must be paid to this issue, and it will only continue to grow in importance with time. It's good that the gplv3 provides support for developers to add their own Affero-like clauses.

However, I think it would be even better if the FSF were to produce a standard-GPL-with-Affero-style-clause that prohibited deploying a server running the licensed software without also making the source available. Even if all that was done was rename the Affero license to "Server-Side GPL", it would provide a common reference point, and prevent an inevitable soup of subtly-differing clauses all attempting to do the same thing. It would be awful if there was a profusion of open source web applications, each of which ostensibly was gplv3 but also had its own clauses that needed to be examined individually. The FSF needs to provide leadership on how to keep software free in a world of server-side applications. --breath 19:32, 28 February 2006 (EST)

An "Affero-like" clause which "prohibited deploying a server running the licensed software without also making the source available", but which managed to function correctly in the test case Non-interactive Program with Affero clause, would be a good thing to produce, especially since I haven't seen one in any license yet. --User:neroden April 1, 2006

I think that any non-private form of propagation should enable the party that the GPL3 licensed work is propagated to, to receive all rights provided by the license. --jsz, May 19

Test Cases

I just added the link to Test_Cases back to the front page. Brett removed it earlier, and I added comments to the talk page explaining why I think it should be kept. I put the link back on this page in order to ping the people in charge, so we can talk about it.

--stefie10 11:43, 30 January 2006 (EST)

A place for external links? (updated)

Hi, ciaran o'riordan here. I've made:

Should this wiki have a place for collecting links to such documents - which are about GPLv3 promotion and explanation, not about the GPLv3 itself - or is there a "no external links" policy or what? Thanks to anyone who can clear this up. ciaran 15:17, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Ok, I've made a page for these: Reusable texts. Comments? ciaran 11:02, 13 February 2006 (EST)

That's good, Ciaran. I may want to transfer some of these links away from the wiki to the gplv3.fsf.org/av section, if that's alright with you. I'm thinking in particular the transcript. What do you think? --johns 16:58, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Linking to the transcript from gplv3.fsf.org/av makes sense, and I'd be happy if FSF did. I think it would still be good though to leave a link to the transcript on the wiki. It shows an example of what sort of materials people can make and/or link to. ciaran 21:45, 28 February 2006 (EST)

Ok, I can agree that it serves some purpose by staying on the wiki as well. --johns 17:24, 1 March 2006 (EST)

rethinking the front page

The front page does not do a good job of leading people to the active areas of the wiki, so I will try to reorganise a bit. I have no attachment to any new layout, so feel free to revert or rereorganise, etc. ciaran 08:18, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

Marking up the draft

In the draft, as it is displayed on the site, some sections are marked with square brackets. Someone who has already studied the draft knows that in one case the square brackets denote where the equivalent text existed in GPLv2. And in another case to denote that the "Geographic Locations" section is slated for removal. Would it be possible to explain somewhere what this markup means? Doing it might help people understand the license better, especially so that they will not think that the square brackets are somehow a part of the proposed license.

"Opinion on ..." documents?

The "GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Rationale" says "See Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" and "See Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management". Are these opinions available? I cannot find them by searching gplv3.fsf.org, fsf.org, or google.mlinksva 19:10, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

My guess is that they're either Software Freedom Law Center opinions or sections within the first rationale document. Unfortunately, the links to the original rationale document are nowhere to be found. Here's an old link, [1]. If they are opinions, I'm sure they're forthcoming from the SFLC[2]. I guess this is the benefit of the free software movement having a law firm.  ;) --ashawley 21:27, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

The opinion letters will be published shortly. Also, there is a link to the old rationale document as well as to the old draft on the Guide page. Links to the opinion letters will be apparent from there too once they are published. --johns 15:26, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

I see they're now published at http://gplv3.fsf.org/opinions-draft-2.html mlinksva 17:36, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

A section for suggested changes to the draft

A few people have suggested changes to GPLv3 on the javascript based comment page. However, I find that interface hard to use. I think it would be easier to use the mediawiki diff to view them. If there isn't serious objection, I'd like to make a section on this page (within the mediawiki) for these proposed changes. I don't think the LA times results were conclusive in this matter. jcarr 23:08, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

PS: Thanks to whomever setup the mediawiki for the FSF. jcarr 23:09, 4 August 2006 (EDT)
PSS: Redirecting http://gplv3.fsf.org/ to http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/ would be a positive move. jcarr 23:14, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

rational 1st draft

This is still an important document imo, but it is not linked to from the front page.

The old is here:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html

Further all ToC links are still pointing to the old URL which now opens a pdf.

If this is superseded, please point to the equivalent of the 2nd draft. Thanks!

Sandbox

I've noticed that there is no sandbox. It might be usefull for people (like me) unfamiliar with mediawiki. No need for complex scripts to reset it, maybe just a page. Though, it might put garbage in the full text search results. Would it bother someone if I (or someone else) create a page for this purpose?

--morelp 09:16, 18 August 2006 (EDT)