[Fsf-friends] Comments on the GPLv3 Process

[Dr. Nagarjuna G.]

On 7/31/06, Ramanraj K <ramanraj.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It  is reported at  http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that
> Linus Torvalds has sharply  criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior"
> to GPLv2.
>
> Several elements in  the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make  it plain that
> the shift  is from "freedom" to  "slavery", "hate" and  "fear". If the
> GPLv3  ever  comes into  effect  with such  terms,  it  may even  make
> non-free licenses look very respectable.
>
> I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am
> maintaining, so  that modifications  to the Calpp  code base  would be
> only under GPLv2  until further notice, to ensure  a comfortable level
> of freedom for its developers and users.
>
> The most important  reason why most people appreciate  the GPL are the
> four freedoms:
>
> 0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> 1: freedom to  study how the program works with  source code and adapt
>    it to your use
> 2: freedom to redistribute copies and
> 3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
>
> The GPLv2  has implemented the  freedoms as license  conditions giving
> rights to  licensees to enjoy the  freedoms listed above,  and has not
> only stood the test of time,  but has created a good ecosystem of free
> software  where  developers, users,  businesses  and governments  have
> benefited.
>
> GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and
> licensees to make the  freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable.
> Many  clauses in  the draft  GPLv3 are  unintelligible  and ambigious,
> giving  open invitations for  interpretations.  Having  provisions for
> "additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even
> worse, they  would only help to  curtail rights and  make the freedoms
> illusory.
>
> If  the  GPLv3  mission is  alter  the  well  known  freedoms 0  to  3
> substantially,  then it  is fairly  important to  discuss that  in the
> first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
>
> It  is premature to  discuss the  GPLv3 draft,  without arriving  at a
> broad  consensus on  what fixes  are  required to  the basic  freedoms
> enjoyed by developers  and licensees. I would request  RMS and the FSF
> to  first make  a restatement  of freedoms  0 to  3  before proceeding
> further with the GPLv3 process.


It is not clear how the freedoms 0 to 3 will be curtailed by the GPLv3.  If
you have seen some modifications that do s, it will be useful to raise an
alert.  Can you explicate  the words, or cluases that curtail the four
freedoms?

Nagarjuna