On 29-Oct-06, at 12:58 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
and again in
the same thread. No one has actually quoted any
clause in gpl3 thats objectionable and the actual topic of the
thread.
i quoted a full paragraph asking for an explanation - nothing has
come so far
and here it is again:
<quote>
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit
such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an
adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce
the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and
(b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves
only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler
or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface
for which an implementation is available to the public in source code
form.
</unquote>
So whats wrong with this paragraph? It is gobbledygook. I am a lawyer
and i wish to make certain points clear:
1. It is a foul canard to say that legalese is obscure and confusing.
It need not be. Where the motives of the drafter of a law are pure,
where he is interested in justice and fairness - the resulting law is
clear, concise and understandable. As is most of the Constitution of
India and the constitution of the US for that matter. The Indian
Penal Code as orginally drafted by Macaulay is a model of clarity and
conciseness - it is a work of literature.
2. When legalese becomes obscure is when amendments are made for
ulterior motives - to cater to vested interests, to be unfair and
unjust - then you need to BS to escape censure. Like exemptions to
our income tax act, excise act - and exemptions anywhere (i'm sure
jtd would provide enough examples here).
3. Good law is always reactive - a specific response to a specific
problem. It is practical and usually clear and concise. Bad law is an
attempt to generalise - anticipate every possible thing that may
occur and provide a remedy. This almost always backfires.
4. Strangely enough the foss development cycle also follows this
paradigm. Solve a problem facing you, code it, release it. Rather
than one monolithical solution to all the worlds problems, lots of
small solutions to small problems. Yes, think ahead - have some
vision - but one step at a time. Or, in other words, think globally,
act locally.
5. The authors of the gpl v3 are planning to solve all the world's
problems in one go. Wont work. This is over-engineering. If you
design one shoe to fit all - it fits no one. What we need is a set of
licenses - specific to different types of programs and specific to
different types of legal systems. Lots and lots of little little
licenses. Maybe, in course of time, these will converge. Maybe not.
6. Frankly i feel that the ambition of the fsf to legislate for the
planet is (i dont want to use the word - but you can guess what it is)
7. Commit early. Commit often. This is the foss way of doing things.
And release when it is ready. Commit once in 15 years, anounce your
schedule, set a release date, call for world wide conferences, waste
money conducting those - is this vista? or is this gpl v3? Both have
much in common - monopoly fighting freedom.
Prediction: gpl v3 is doomed to failure. Sure, fsf loyalists *may*
opt for it. Those who have handed over their code to fsf will *have*
to opt for it (think fsf is going to ask them for an opinion?),
50,000 members of sourceforge will click for it - but thinking people
who are interested in writing and developing code and making a living
out of it?
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/