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. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
