Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:25:58 -0400

On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 16:27 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <btilly@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>     Ben> Stephen, I'm going to put what simo says
> 
>     > simo> the GPLv3 license is NOT GPLv2 compatible.
> 
> Is that what you mean by "what simo says"?
> 
>     Ben> into the, "it should be obvious" bucket.
> 
> It was to me and Bernard, but for the wrong reason.  It was not to
> Norbert, and Mr. Moglen himself has muddied the waters.  For all these
> reasons, I think it's a good idea to try to put together a correct
> standard explanation.

I think that you are muddying waters here :-)

>     Ben> If the FSF thought that the GPL v2 logically implied
>     Ben> everything that is in the GPL v3, then there would be no
>     Ben> reason to release the GPL v3.  They could just explain why
>     Ben> the GPL v2 already says what they want.
> 
> That's making a pretty strong assumption about the way the FSF thinks.

No, this is just pretty straight logic. You do not change a license that
has worked well for 15 years just to scratch an itch. And whatever you
may personally think of the FSF they are not stupid at all.

> But the FSF has gone to great trouble to put the explanations into the
> license (ignoring the kibitzing of some pretty smart lawyers, to

Needless to remind you, that Moglen IS a pretty good lawyer, and
professor at the Columbia Law School. Perhaps you should document
yourself better on this argument, your arguments are very weak, and I do
not really understand what's your aim here. It seem you need to say
something negative about that just to keep yourself happy.

> boot).  They might very well have decided that it would be a good idea
> to clarify everything that they can in a compatible way, especially in
> a new environment with new laws.

There is a bit of this too, patent lawyers and patents have become
stronger and there was the need to make it explicit what was considered
implicit in that regard. There are also the DRM provisions. But another
big thing that you can find in the GPLv3 is the License Compatibility
section that is something completely new, and basically this is what
makes the GPLv3 incompatible with the GPLv2. The GPlv2 has no
compatibility provisions and this make them incompatible.

> It's also possible that compatibility would depend on jurisdictions,
> etc., and that in jurisdictions where incompatibility would result
> they want to enforce their intrepretation, and do so by making it
> explicit.

Don't think so, to solve that you should really draw a set of licenses
each in the native jurisdiction language and with precise reference to
this jurisdiction laws.

Simo.