On Sunday 29 October 2006 13:36, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
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
> i quoted a full paragraph asking for an explanation - nothing has
> come so far
I replied. Quote
Or providing hardware (reprogrammable), an intermediate layer
(interpreter for eg) which is closed and designed by u, and gpl
software which cannot run without the interpreter is not allowed.
Your example in a previous mail is what is being referred to.
and here it is again:
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.
VM sitting between machine hardware and gpl software requiring either
vm and or special libs and or complier to compile which therefore
will allow gpl software to run only on that machine+ vm combo
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).
Dont get me started. Just had a spat in the customs over another
mindless rule that actually rewards the crooks.
3. Good law is always reactive - a specific response to a specific
Correct. In this case the extremely treacherous issue of hardware
It is practical and usually clear and concise. Bad
an attempt to generalise - anticipate every possible thing that may
occur and provide a remedy. This almost always backfires.
So headover to gplv3 site and suggest simplifications.
4. Strangely enough the foss development cycle also
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.
The simplicity of v2 stemmed from the fact that copyright law is well
established and almost similiar in every country and country specific
variations were still covered by the gpl (by fortunate circumstances
Patent law and drm are the exact opposite of the above. Infact DRM is
meant specifically to usurp the rights provided by copyright law not
by modyfying copyright law whch would uncover the real motive, but by
mandating restrictions on hardware and software. V3 has to deal with
this while being disadvantaged by not being a law maker but merely a
copyright holder / advisor to copyright holders.
7. Commit early. Commit often. This is the foss way of
things. And release when it is ready.
Exactly what the v3 committee is doing.
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?
That is because drm / software patents and it's impact have happened
very recently (infact software patents until last year were being
granted only in the US and until they were considerd for legeslation
in the EU, India and other countries via WTO, v2 did not need any
urgent change. Fortunately software patent provisions were narrowly
defeated in the EU and India entirely due to the efforts of the FSF.
But may get through in the EU and even India given Kapil Sibal's love
By just sheer chance u have been given a window of opportunity.
Both have much in common - monopoly fighting freedom.
Read 2nd last sentence of abv para.
Prediction: gpl v3 is doomed to failure. Sure, fsf
opt for it. Those who have handed over their code to fsf will
*have* to opt for it
Rubbish. If u said v2 or later v3 is applicable. If u said v2 (no
later) no power on earth can change it to v3.
(think fsf is going to ask them for an
They dont have to u have either granted permission or u havent. If u
havent, unless u do change to V3 no body can. And by the way
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?
How does V3 change your ability to make a living?.
In fact it ensures that u and ur customer will not be barred from
using gpl software on crippled hardware.