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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:54:18PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Socially, this is clearly going to be very divisive.  Andrew Suffield
> is the obvious person to comment, but I would worry about Debian's
> reaction if I were you.

I'm not getting involved in the GPLv3 stuff, although I can see
offhand that they've made a few common mistakes (like an overzealous
anti-DRM clause).

It is indeed a terribly written draft. Needs some serious debugging.

> On that ground as well I think it's best to wait.

Yes, there's no point discussing it until at least they've shaken the
worst of the crap out of it. I see various things in there that make
little sense for the FSF to do, but nothing fundamentally as bad as
people were expecting, so I'm planning to ignore the whole thing for a
few months at least. It seems harmless enough.

Quite why they included the obsolete patent apocalpse clause is beyond
me, it's not really in the spirit of free software. And I thought
everybody knew that defensive patents don't work any more, so there's
just no point.

-- 
Andrew Suffield

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature