Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:30:41 +0900

>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> writes:

    Norbert> Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

    >> I knew there was something trivial!  You are required to
    >> distribute a copy of GPLv3 with the program.  GPLv2 does not
    >> allow such a requirement.  :-(

    Norbert> Are you sure that you're not misinterpreting GPLv2 here?

You're right.  I was thinking of the GPLv3 added to a GPLv2 program as
an "invariant section" as in the GNU FDL, but that's quite different.
As you point out, the GPLv3 in this case would be metadata like the
copyright notice itself, necessary to implement the full license terms.

While I'm admitting fallibility, I should clarify that this

    sjt> BTW, I found it interesting that several of the false
    sjt> positives in my search mention the issue of the FUD-ability
    sjt> of GPLv3, even saying that it would be a factor in a decision
    sjt> to fall back to GPLv2 rather than release GPLv3 at this time.

is a misinterpretation of
http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees/B/Minutes/GPLv3Bconfcall_4_16mar2006/
There is a statement that if there's too much FUD about GPLv3, "GPLv2
should and will prevail", but this is from one or more random
committee members, not an FSF spokesperson.  Clearly, it didn't mean
that the GPLv3 might not be released, only that some users of the GPL
might not "upgrade" from v2 to v3.  My apologies.


-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory