On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > FWIW, just to add to this with another slight correction/addition to the > historical record on this point, I've seen and heard RMS publicly claim > in his post-GPLv3 speeches that he is *the* author of all versions of > the GPL, and that others involved were advisors, not co-authors. > > RMS has also told me personally that during the GPLv3 process, he > considered lots of the proposals being offered to him, but vetted and/or > rewrote them himself before accepting them.
I should respond to this since I've claimed to be a "co-author" of GPLv3. I think both RMS's assertions about being "the author" is not inconsistent with this; we're using different definitions of "authorship". It is absolutely the case that RMS had final authorial control over the text in the GPLv3 license family, and that RMS (and the FSF) conceived of RMS as having final authorial control. In that sense, RMS was indeed *the* author of the GPLv3 license family. I have no reason to think the same wasn't true for predecessor versions of the GNU copyleft licenses -- probably much more so (leaving aside the evidence of Cygnus influence over LGPLv2.0 -- and BTW Bradley wouldn't you say that some of LGPLv2.0 doesn't really look like RMS's unmistakeable writing style? :). I have sometimes specifically said that I was the co-author of GPLv3 along with RMS and Eben. The reason I think of it that way is that the substantial portion of the work that went into drafting GPLv3 from December 2005 through June 2007 was done by the three of us (though there were of course earlier nonpublic drafts that predated my joining SFLC). I don't think of what I did, over a eighteen-month period, as mere 'advisory' work. Indeed would describe the final period of GPLv3 drafting, which began essentially with a near-total rewrite (DD3 [released March 2007] to the final release]) as largely a drafting collaboration between me and RMS. But no question, RMS had final say on both text and policy. I want to also mention two people who played a significant role in the drafting of the GPLv3 license family who are often overlooked: David (Novalis) Turner and Brett Smith. I can point to specific provisions in the license texts that reflect their ideas and indeed wording. And of course Bradley you played an instrumental role in the drafting of AGPLv3 section 13. :) > I have no reason to doubt RMS' claim of authorship and having exchanged > thousands of emails with RMS over the years, I attest that (IMO) GPLv2 > and GPLv3 are both unmistakably written in RMS' writing style. I think if you do a really careful analysis of the GPLv3 text you'll see some stylistic variations across sections or even parts of sections. But RMS certainly in general made it be 'his voice', and I believe that in the work I did I was trying to emulate that voice (perhaps giving it a bit of lawyerly flair). Since you bring the issue up, Bradley, I will note that I've found over the years some lawyers claiming to have been involved in the drafting of GPLv3 who I can confirm never were there... odd phenomenon. :) - RF
