Talk:GNU General Public License/Archive 2

message: The licensee is only required to provide the source code to people who receive [...]. (This may be changed for version 3 of the GPL.)
Would you like to cite some sources on that one, or alternatively remove it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:19, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
: Yes, I'd like to cite this article, in the ==History== section. Note the last paragraphs and the external pages linked as references - David Gerard 17:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to a paragraph by David Gerard 

message: Eben didn't join Stallman at FSF until after GPLv2 was released.  He is working on v3. Novalis 08:24, 1 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Moglen 

message: Now, given that I don't know the case reference, saying that it was in the U.S. district court, first circuit is misleading since there's, I believe, 5 districts in that circuit.  Looking it up here, it mentions Judge Saris in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Can anyone verify that this was where the case was tried?  It sounds like they settled prior to going to the Appeals Court, which would be the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. --Ricky81682 04:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
: I can (and do!) verify it; I was at the hearing.  They actually settled prior to a final judgement from the district court. Novalis 23:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  District court for MySQL AB v Progress NuSphere 

message: I think the following captures the GPL simply but CYD keeps reverting this change without stating why (please do here), what do others think?
The purpose of the GPL is to grant everyone the right to copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs and source code freely. It requires that all changes and derivative works be distributed freely as well with the source code made publically available.
We can add something to the effect of "It requires [under copyright law] that all changes and derivative works be distributed freely..." zen master    T  13:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above: The GPL only grants rights to people who receive a program; developers and consumers in general do not receive this rights. The right to keep modifications private is an important feature of the GPL. -- CYD 13:45, 6 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhhh, that is not a feature of the GPL that is how copyright law works (the GPL IS a copyright license).  I am no longer saying "developers and consumers" you reverted my change that said "everyone", why?  What is wrong with using the word "freely"?  I think that word is good because it encapsulates free as in freedom.  zen master    T  13:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I won't let myself be dragged into an edit war, but I want to state clearly that I do not agree with the changes that are claimed to "clarify" things. Licenses "grant" rights, they don't "encapsulate" them. How could this possibly clarify anything? You need to repeat the term "license", BSD by itself is not correct. Etc. pp. The only change that has some merit is "like" to "such as". Rl 18:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You fail to note that many of the changes the last day or so have been accepted without hassle, I think we are working towards improvement.  Everyone's concerns are being addressed.  The "encapsulate" is refering to the list of freedoms specifically -- that list does indeed encapsulate what is granted (at verbose length) in the GPL.  We should rewrite the BSD sentence so we don't have to write "license" twice, which is annoying. zen master    T  18:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  Update: Rl, I made changes based on the points you raised above, let me know what you think. zen master    T  18:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about my earlier rant. I just fail to see the need for many changes you propose, and I am only objecting to those that I think make things worse. The BSD license sentence is alright now I guess. But this encapsulation thingy is only getting worse: You say above that the list in the article encapsulates what is granted in the GPL, but the article states that the GPL encapsulates something. See the difference? I still fail to see what was wrong with "grant" in the first place. Secondly, the GPL does not do a "grant of copyright". Copyrights remain with their owner -- the GNU GPL is a license that grants certain rights under certain conditions. Among those rights is a right to redistribute, but a right to make a copy is not a copyright. Also, you removed "the recipients"; as CYD pointed out before, the GPL only grants those rights to people who receive software governed by that license. We need to mention somewhere that changes to GPL'ed software need not be shared as long as they are neither published nor distributed.Rl 19:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the freedoms lists is what the GPL is trying to encapsulate under copyright law but your criticism is valid.  What I mean by grant is "grant of usage" but you are right it's not clear. It might be more accurate to say "the GPL is encapsulated by..." but that sounds funny, how about "Simply stated, the GPL is a copyright license that attempts to encapsulate the following freedoms", instead of encapsulate we could use "protect" or "ensures" or something better.  The point i was trying to make was that the list of freedoms isn't what is being "granted" in the GPL, rather, the GPL was created with the aim of achieving the freedoms in the list (perhaps chicken vs egg).  What do you mean when you say the right to make a copy is not a copyright?  I agree we should add something to the effect that derivative works need not be shared unless they are distributed but that is true for all copyrighted works, that point is not specific to the GPL, right? zen master    T  19:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd remove "under copyright law". The sentence starts with "the purpose"; copyright is a circumstance or a means. Your suggestion "the GPL is a copyright license" seems a better way to mention copyright (btw: Copyright license, anyone?). -- What I meant is that if I grant you to make a copy of my work under certain conditions, I am still the owner of the copyright; all you got is a copyright license; IOW, copyright is an exclusive right. -- Actually, proprietary software typically prohibits any changes to the code, so you never get to wonder whether you may or must share them. However, in some jurisdictions running a program is considered copying (from harddisc to RAM), so requiring the publication of private changes would be legally enforceable. That private changes don't have to be shared was an about-face for RMS and it is also important because it is now famously a loophole for web service providers. -- Please drop "encapsulate", that word doesn't make sense here.Rl 21:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPL simply stated 

message: The fact that LGPL is used for libraries is misleading and should be clarified, or removed entirely leaving only a link to LGPL article. gnu.org Helix84 18:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, lots of people do use the LGPL for their libraries when the GPL might be better.  The common thought is LGPL for libraries, GPL for apps.  The article should acknowledge this, as well as noting the FSF's view that of where the LGPL is appropriate. -- Novalis 20:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesser General Public License