[Committee-d] First round of comments

[Brett Smith]

I got through about 100 comments today.  I broke them down into rough
categories that I thought might be useful, and made notes on other
interesting ones as well.  (Where "interesting" is not at all well-defined,
especially for people who aren't me.  :) )

Zak, I at least found some comments that seem to reflect what various
kernel developers said in the position statement, so I expect you can use
this as a starting point, even though I'm not nearly all the way through
things yet.  I figured I'd send this along to the list, though, in case
people are interested in reviewing it, and maybe taking up the cause of any
comments I've highlighted.

Comments coming out against TiVo protection:
1956
1955
1917 (?? - definitely a new spin on it, at least)
1913 (suggests allowing TPMs but making sure it's legal to circumvent them)
1833 (suggests this is bad for people making medical devices, etc.)
1765 ("Focusing on a particular way to make software read-only is wrong")

Comments against all additional restrictions:
1782 ("way too vague")

Comments against the patent covenant not to sue:
1870
1691

Comments saying GPLv3 abuses developers' trust in FSF:
1875
1834
1766

Comments on 7b4:
1952 (suggests allowing any usual source distribution mechanism)
1927 (says it encourages dual licensing)

Comments about "this is not a TPM":
1926 (fine line, be careful)
1931 (reference to US code is bad)
1903 (ditto)

Comments suggesting that it's still not clear who/what the covenant covers:
1704
another one that came after 1704
1703

Other interesting comments:
1902 suggests people are required to distribute too much source and offers
an alternative.
1883 questions what tools aren't required in source.
1832 asks "If a GPLed program uses plugins, and warns users about unsigned
plugins, but otherwise runs them fine, do the plugin authors have to
provide keys as part of the source?"
1831 asks about how the license interacts with European moral rights.
1813/1812 asks "Can you make an argument that DRM-encumbered distribution
is propagation, since it doesn't allow users to copy the software?"
1800 suggests covenant should include conveying.
1762 asks whether the covenant extends to modified works, which is
interesting since I thought it very clearly did in draft 1, and I think
it's less clear now.
1759 wants automatic termination back.
1756 thinks termination needs to explicitly cover failure to provide
covenant, etc.
1744 points out that keys may not be all that's necessary to run modified
versions on the same hardware.
1736 asks about nagware screen being protected by 7b0.
1734 says prohibiting "requirements regarding changes to the name of the
work" is too broad.
1712 has an interesting twist on symmetric upgrade.

-- 
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation