Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:32:45 +0900

>>>>> "simo" == simo  <> writes:

    simo> These are notes of a committee, not FSF words.

Exactly my point.  You say the FSF is "clear", and I say "I can't find
it."  Then you say, "Eben Moglen told me personally."  Hm.

    simo> We may say that, but I will wait the end of the debate on
    simo> GPLv3 and the release of the official version. Actually we
    simo> are speaking just about a draft that will surely change
    simo> before the end of the process.

It's a draft FAQ/HOWTO, clearly labeled as such.  Wouldn't it be more
constructive to fix it now, at a stage where people are most confused?

    simo> Terms in legal sense means just conditions (or so I am told,
    simo> IANAL).  So I do not understand why a judge should be
    simo> looking at identical wording.

As an optimization.  If "diff GPLv2 GPLv3" produces no output, then
the terms are the same.  This is absolutely safe.

If not, the question remains, what constitutes the same terms?  For
example, can an implicit patent license be the "same terms" as an
explicit patent license?  Can GPLv2, which has no equivalent to GPLv3
section 3, be said to impose the "same terms" regarding DRM?  Norbert
seems to think so; if he's wrong, why?

    simo> I wish people would be more constructive and explain
    simo> clearly, through comments on the comments system,

Why put in the effort, and muddy things up, on an alpha-test document?
There are competent people with a professional interest and competence
working on it now, and the odds are they'll catch 99% of what I might
have to say.  Draft 2 is soon enough for me.

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