[freeroleplay] Re: GPL 3 and all that
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:09:59 +0100
Samuel Penn wrote:
> As someone who likes the BSD license, it's putting more
> restrictions on what people have to do in order to comply.
> I also think it adds to the complexity and legal minefield,
> making it harder to use Open Source.
I would agree that it increases the complexity of the license. However,
all changes to the GPL could mean increased complexity so should we
dismiss all changes? Also, without reading the actual change the
license, I can't really argue about how much or little the complexity of
the GPL will be increased.
> As has been said, it would have to be like a EULA, restricting
> what you do when you use it, rather than what you do when you
> redistribute.
That is one issue that may be raised by this change, although the main
issue with EULAs is not that they restrict use so much as they are
contracts you accept when you simply open shrink-wrap or click a
dialogue box on a computer. The controversy over EULAs is really about
the fact they make users accept unreasonable terms by such simple
actions. Many have used the same argument against the GPL's "NO
WARRANTY" clause.
I agree, private use should remain private and the GPL should not
license such activity, but obviously distributing a service to the
general public is not a private use and I can see an argument to treat
that kind of use differently.
> Hypothetically, if someone obtained a copy of FRINGE and ran
> it at a convention, would they be in breach of the license if
> one of the players asked for a copy of it and they were unable
> to comply (they can't remember where they got it from, no
> photocopiers at hand)? It all depends on exactly how it is worded.
> It *could* be messy. It may not be. Maybe it'll be perfect.
I think the proposed clause only applies if you are providing a service,
such as the Google search engine for example, so the above situation
would probably not be covered. I think we should reserve judgement and
hypothesis until we know the precise terms.
>>will be ample opportunity to raise any concerns during the proposed
>>public review process.
>
> I'm aware of this, and it'll be interesting to see what really
> does happen.
I imagine many people will voice the same concerns and I can think of no
reason the FSF would not listen to these concerns, if they are not
already listening to the discussion on Slashdot and other forums.
> This in itself is good enough reason not to change
> the license in my mind, but RMS has always favoured idealism
> over practicality (which has been to the benefit of Free Software
> in many cases).
I would like to note that RMS is not the only person who works on the
GPL. The group includes lawyers, company directors and software
developers as well as idealists which seems like a good mix to me.
> Another license I have been looking at is the CC Attribution
> license, which I think is compatible with almost anything, but
> overly wordy for what it does:
It is not GPL or GFDL compatible.
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
>
> AFAICT, it's just the BSD license with more words.
I would like to point out here that the CCPL is not a free content
license as the FRPGC defines it. There are a few other considerations
with the CCPL, most importantly that, unlike the BSD license, it does
not require a copy of the source be provided. It is also not DFSG free
as defined by debian-legal[1].
> However, if I'm going with a restrictive license such as the
> GPL, I'd want it to be on my terms and not changeable at some
> future date by someone else. The odd file I have which states
> 'GPL 2 or later' was always an oversight on my part. Given the
> choice between 'no restrictions' and 'some restrictions which
> may be changed by someone else', I'd choose no restrictions.
That is your choice. Personally, nothing in the proposed change leads me
to believe the FSF will use the ability to modify the GPL unreasonably
and I would continue to license my work under the GPL 2 or later. If at
any point in time the FSF become 'evil' I can always fix my work at GPL
2 or whatever, and my old work can still be used under the original
versions of the GPL so nothing is lost.
Kind regards...
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[1]
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/51f02b773938b057/3d0cc9714ec601e6#3d0cc9714ec601e6
Other related posts:
