X-Debbugs-CC: licens...@gnu.org
> > Missatge reenviat
> > De: Ansgar Burchardt
> > 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
