[Committee-d] Comments summary

[Brett Smith]

Below is a guide to all the interesting comments I found on the current
GPLv3 draft.  This is basically the second version of what I sent out last
week, so the same rules still apply: I was singling out the things Zak
wanted, everything else is basically completely arbitrary, etc.  But this
covers the rest of the comments, and has a bit more categorization, which
shows some interesting patterns.

I'm thinking we could discuss at our meeting tomorrow which of these issues
we'd like to take up (of those we haven't already); does that sound good to
people?

Thanks,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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")
1604 ("To accommodate Linus, make this optional")
1525
1520 (about the requirement that modified versions need not report)

Other comments about TiVo protection:
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?"
1813/1812 asks "Can you make an argument that DRM-encumbered distribution
is propagation, since it doesn't allow users to copy the software?"
1744 points out that keys may not be all that's necessary to run modified
versions on the same hardware.
1712 has an interesting twist on symmetric upgrade: require
signatures/remote attestation from an "independent" third party.  I'm not
sure this would really work in the real world, but it's good food for
thought.
1644 suggests that the anti-TiVoization clause should require that the
hardware accept other signing keys, rather than requiring that the accepted
key be distributed.
1609 says that anti-TiVoization should cover propagation.

Comments against all additional restrictions:
1782 ("way too vague")
1667 and 1661 (says it kills copyleft)
1579 (different twist: "If it's good enough for GPL, put it in GPL")

Comments against the patent covenant not to sue:
1870
1691 (actually about section 7 rather than 11)

Other comments about the covenant:
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.
1581 considers weaknesses in the covenant when patents/copyrights change
hands.

Comments saying GPLv3 abuses developers' trust in FSF:
1875
1834
1766
1564 (kind of -- says license should have a new name)
1661

Comments on 7b4:
1952 (suggests allowing any usual source distribution mechanism)
1927 (says it encourages dual licensing)
1683 ("over a computer network" is actually a loophole)
1608 ("same network session" is too specific)
1569 (wants to require publication of source in other circumstances)
1427 (opposed)
1498 (like 1569)

Comments about "this is not a TPM":
1926 (fine line, be careful)
1931 (reference to US code is bad)
1903 (ditto)
1655 (ditto)

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

Comments on the system libraries exception:
1583 suggests widening the standard libraries exception, which I think is
already covered in my language.
1516 suggests the libraries exception doesn't allow easy porting to
non-free platforms.
1431 suggests library exception isn't enough for non-free OSes.

Comments on the definition of source:
1902 suggests people are required to distribute too much source and offers
an alternative.
1883 questions what tools aren't required in source.
1573 points out amibguity in use of the word "free."

Comments about termination:
1759 wants automatic termination back; there was at least one other comment
along these lines, too.
1756 thinks termination needs to explicitly cover failure to provide
covenant, etc.

Comments about the scope of 7b0:
1736 asks about nagware screen being protected by 7b0.
1678 is worried about ads from 7b0.

Other interesting comments:
1831 asks about how the license interacts with European moral rights.
1734 says prohibiting "requirements regarding changes to the name of the
work" is too broad.
1638 wants 7b5 to allow FS-friendly companies to proactively sue with their
patents.  I don't think I agree (too hard to define, and I don't think this
we should encourage this kind of use of software patents), but interesting
anyway.
1636 asks about renting, as commonly happens in Europe.  Is this covered by
our definitions of propagate and convey?
1611 proposes allowing choice of law; mhatta marked this for discussion.
1598 brings up the language problem that Committee C had.
1593: Change "Verbatim Copying" to "Conveying Verbatim"
1592: Change "the Program" to "the Work"
1563 points out, in a roundabout way, that use on a local machine appears
to be conveying.  I don't like the proposed solution, though.
1535 asks if distributing binary patches is allowed.
1531 notes 6b1 does not require a written offer valid for any third party.
1469 suggests there's a possible loophole in allowing source distribution
from the same place as the binary.

-- 
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation