[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:30:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hello,
* Robert Collins wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:41:31AM CEST:
> > 2. No Weakening of Autoconf Copyleft.
> >
> > The availability of this Exception does not imply any general presumption
> > that third-party software is unaffected by the copyleft requirements of
> > the license of Autoconf.
>
> I have two comments:
>
> Clause 2 seems like something that *should* be provided by the GPLv3
> itself, or else all exceptions will need it, won't they?
I think it may be a simple legal requirement that a statement of the
form "this exception E to some requirement R does not imply that other
reasons that R may hold are void" accompanies E not R. IANAL though,
this is pure speculation on my part.
> Should we have a 'drafting an exception' guidebook somewhere.
I'd say "have a lawyer do it for you" is a good guidebook.
Really, I don't think anyone can seriously recommend otherwise.
> Secondly, I wonder if the definition for EOM could be a little more
> precise. Something like 'EOM consists of the helper scripts [x, y, z],
> and the minimum configure script that can be output by autoconf to
> configure a project.
Well, it would not be good if the license would need to be changed for,
say, every other Autoconf version, due to some technical details that
changed.
> Secondly, I wonder if the definition for EOM could be a little more
> precise. Something like 'EOM consists of the helper scripts [x, y, z],
> and the minimum configure script that can be output by autoconf to
> configure a project. I guess I'm saying its not clear to me that saying
> 'minimally verbose non-debugging non-tracing' is sufficient - if someone
> adds a non-debugging, non-tracing non-verbose mode that sucks in
> autoconf evalution code to the output, it would be outside the intention
I guess you're saying here that the definition is not strict enough to
prevent abuses, right?
Cheers,
Ralf