[freeroleplay] Re: [licensing] GPL 3 open call for comments
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:27:10 +0000
Jerry Stratton wrote:
>>Unfortunately, I don't think that is likely to happen any time soon.
>>"Content" is on the FSF "Words To Avoid" list:
>
> I didn't know that; thanks. Good thing I posted here before commenting there!
Actually, I can't see where one could comment at the Software Freedom
Law Center: there is only an email addresss and an AIM account! I shall
probably draft a letter to them collecting all our concerns for the
proposed GPL 3.
>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
>>
>>On the other hand, referring to a "Work" rather than a "Program" or
>>"Document" might be an idea.
>
> Yes, that's all that I meant--not referring to software (or program).
> Document would be fine, although it might be limiting in the future.
I think Work is the least confining word. Personally, I would like to
see a clearer definition of how to define "source" code and "object"
code specifically so that the GPL can be applied to non-software works
with ease.
Also, some sort of Transparency clause as in the FDL would be desirable,
although highly unlikely as it could easily break compatibility with
older versions of the GPL.
Yours sincerely...
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
