Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   I don't.  It's very carelessly written[1], and it's very hard to
   understand the motivation for many of the exceptions.  A leading
   example is the blanket permission to "propagate" effectively
   copy-protected programs, which is really weird, and equally
   explicitly contradicted in the section on DRM.  It doesn't get
   better from there, either, except for those sections that are taken
   verbatim from, or are slight clarifications of, GPL v2.

You should read the rationale.  Oh, and it is a draft, so if you have
comments, http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and post them there, not here.

   In fact it says Thou Shalt Not Use Free Software for Privacy
   Protection, because what else is privacy protection but white-hat
   DRM?

It says no such thing.  Being able to keep data private is a essential
freedom, that the GPLv3 protects.  What you are not allowed to do, is
subjugate others freedom.  Which is exactly what Digital Restriction
Management does.

   More fundamentally, this retracts a core principle of the GPL up to
   v2: it doesn't tell you what to do with the software, only the
   license terms under which you may redistribute it.  This violates
   Freedom 0, which is explicitly affirmed in dGPLv3[2] for the first
   time.

Freedom zero is not violated in either GPLv2, or dGPLv3.  You are
allowed by both licenses to run the program for any purpose.

   I'm sure that all of these questions can be answered, more or less
   satisfactorily.  But given that they haven't been answered yet, and
   will presumably require changes in the language to be aswered
   satisfactorily, it is _way_ premature to consider using this
   refugee from _Fantasy & Science Fiction_ for any free software.[3]

If you wish to have your questions answered, http://gplv3.fsf.org is
the proper place for such discussions.