Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:25:27 +0900

>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <> writes:


Norbert, please reconsider what you're writing.  You're just plain
wrong about several things, and your positions on others are at best
highly controversial.

GPLv2 and draft GPLv3 *are* mutually incompatible; to use both for the
same software, you must explicitly dual license.  That *is* a problem
if Bernard is correct in forecasting that controversy over GPLv3 will
cause some people to follow Linus Torvalds and license their software
as GPLv2-only, because the FSF clearly intends to license its software
as GPLv3-and-later.  GPG *is* GPLed DRM; only the explicit language in
draft GPLv3 could prevent modifying it from being used as a cause for
action under the U.S. DMCA.  The patent retaliation measures allowed
by draft GPLv3 *are not* "nasty" (ie, likely to be effective),
especially against "patent sharks" employing lawyers, not programmers.

Draft GPLv3 arguably *is* more restrictive than the GPLv2 in the sense
that for the first time there are restrictions on *use* of a program
in the GPL.

We've seen several people on this list, some prominent in the
community, express their misgivings over the new provisions in draft
GPLv3.  This is a real problem if it causes copyright holders to move
away from the current version of the GPL, especially if they move to
other copyleft licenses (including past versions of the GPL).

*None* of this is good for free software business.  It may be
necessary to protect freedom, and in that sense be "good", but please
don't deny the very real problems that are going to come up for
anybody who wishes to deal with the world outside of the GNU System.

Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory