Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work > or create a derivative work to read and understand his countries > copyright laws?
The FSF has recently published A Quick Guide to GPLv3 http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html I think that's pretty much an admission of how this licence is even less hacker-friendly than GPLv2. Looking at the explanation: neutralising EUCD/DMCA-type laws is good, but using GPLv3 comes with the cost of endorsing things like the Affero GPL. After all the times RMS has spoken out against Creative Commons because endorsing CC-SA also endorses CC-NC a little, it's really disappointing to see FSF/GNU create their own similar brand confusion. After the number of times various FSF people have spoken out against confusing copyrights, trademarks, patents and so on, it's disappointing that FSF/GNU has produced a combined copyright-and-patent licence. That's really the summary that can be used about the whole GPLv3 saga: good but disappointing. Best wishes, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]