Re: [Fsfe-uk] GPLv3 last days for comment, and other news links

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:03 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Patents cannot be used on software at all here.  It's disappointing
> if software patent problems are being exported to us by GPLv3.
> 
> Why is one a licence issue when the more widespread problem is not?
> I feel that GPLv3 should be a copyright licence, not an IP one.

Why should freedoms be partially severable along the fault lines of the
underlying laws? Surely that should just be an implementation detail?

"Copyright" alone is a loaded term which could refer to a variety of
different laws and rights, any of which may or may not apply. The GPLv3
is quite specific in being vague about this in some places; e.g.
"Propagation includes copying, [.. other specific acts ..] and in some
countries other activities as well." Depending on the work, the right to
lend it (for example) could be grounded on the basis of a couple of
different laws within the EU.

Granted, copyright-type laws are vastly more similar than dissimilar,
and patents are not so, but I'm not sure why limiting the boundaries of
the GPL to specific sets of laws would be a good thing?

Cheers,

Alex.