X-Debbugs-CC: licens...@gnu.org > > -------- Missatge reenviat -------- > > De: Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> > > Javier Serrano Polo writes: > > > If your rights have been terminated and not permanently > > > reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the > > > same material under section 10. > > > > That's not discrimination against persons or groups.
It is not obvious, I know, but the fact that GPLv3 forbids me to distribute the program to former license violators is discrimination against persons, unless you are implying that license violators are not persons. > > > Assuming he knows about the restriction, he may rightfully think that > > > GPLv3-deny-Alice imposes a further restriction, thus he may remove it > > > and convey under GPLv3. However, this would be a "poor wording" trick. > > > > Interpreting a part of the original license as a "further restriction" > > is very creative, but most likely not correct. But it may be correct. It is most likely not intended by the license designer. GPLv3 does not explicitly restrict my ability to distribute software to former offenders. It does not say that my section 10 can be modified because of actions from other people; it does not say that some of my recipients may not receive a license. There is no section 7.g about "Prohibiting conveyance to previous license violators". If I develop a program under GPLv3, I can distribute it to whoever I want. But if some user has lost her rights for gnutls-openssl, for instance, I cannot combine my program with gnutls-openssl and distribute it to this user; there is a further restriction. Furthermore, as I stated (the "more problematic to Bob" interpretation), the only way for me not to transmit a license to an offender is to not convey the covered work. So a copyright holder may pretend that I do not convey such work to these persons, because conveying implies a new license, and they do not qualify to receive new licenses under section 10. If I refuse and convey the work to people that do not qualify, I may be regarded as a violator as well. > > People using free software licenses in non-friendly ways is an entire > > different problem from the license being free or not. You are absolutely right, they are different problems. One problem is how to forbid that offenders receive a new license without reinstatement from the copyright holder. GPLv3 wants to accomplish this, but it is not well-worded enough. Another problem is whether the license is free. If GPLv3 effectively prevents distribution to former license offenders, then it breaks freedoms 2 and 3. It is a non-free license. Yet another problem is whether the license is DFSG compliant. If GPLv3 effectively prevents distribution to these persons, as I call them, then it discriminates against persons and breaks DFSG #5. It is not DFSG compliant. As I explain in #854825, it seems FTP masters are not the competent body about the final interpretation of DFSG.[1] I would like to point that the fact that many packages in the main component are under non DFSG compliant licenses for so many years does not invalidate your work. The issues I am raising are not evident. I really appreciate your answer and would like to hear further from you, but it looks like this is out of your jurisdiction, so I will understand if you do not reply. -- [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=854825#50
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
