Oh, my darling flamefest :-) [LWN.net]

Oh, my darling flamefest :-)

Posted Apr 10, 2006 6:18 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

This particular issue (that the text of the current draft "explains" what "derivative work" means in a way that doesn't match the law very well) has been noted in a number of comments on the GPLv3 site, so I think Eben Moglen should be aware of it.

Oh, my darling flamefest :-)

Posted Apr 10, 2006 6:26 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Oh, then if you are really concerned, you might want to ask what his plans are regarding that language.

I went to his BOF in Boston last week, and met with him in NY on Friday. It was clear to me from both occassions that lots of text would change.

Bruce

Oh, my darling flamefest :-)

Posted May 16, 2006 15:29 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

Hello Bruce; I have sent the following e-mail to Eben Moglen, cc: you, and
I'm registering it here, as well as commenting on the GPLv3 draft:

Hello Professor Moglen.

I am a Systems Developer in Minas Gerais' State Assembly, Brasil. Our
(public) organization makes extensive use of Free Software, and is slowly
but certainly pushing for a generalized use of Free Software in our State,
which is the third economy in our country, behind only the states of Rio
de Janeiro and São Paulo.

I have also had a two-year legal training, and a two-year experience as a
paralegal in a District Attorney's office. During my service as a
paralegal, I have helped research for two criminal cases of copyright
infringement.

I am writing this, as suggested by Bruce Perens, to call to your attention
the ambiguous language in the GPLv3 draft, clause #0, "caput", which I
quote (reference numbers between [] are mine, of course):

0. Definitions.
A "licensed program" means any program or other work distributed under
this License. The "Program" refers to any such program or work, and [1]
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any [2]
derivative work under copyright law: [3] that is to say, [4] a work
containing the Program or a portion of it, either modified or unmodified.
[5] Throughout this License, the term "modification" includes, without
limitation, translation and extension. [6] A "covered work" means either
the Program or any work based on the Program. Each licensee is addressed
as "you".

The ambiguous language I refer to is the complex sentence that begins in
the reference marked [1] and ends in the reference [5] (a "work based on
the Program" means ... unmodified). This sentence tries to define "a work
based on the Program" as [2] "any derivative work under copyright law",
but then uses the explicative expression [3] "that is to say" to equate
[2] "any derivative work under copyright law" with [4] "a work containing
the Program or a portion of it, either modified or unmodified" ... which
is clearly untrue in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

I have entered some comments in the draft wiki, and my suggestions are
basically:

(1) eliminate the "that is to say ... unmodified" ([3] .. [5]) part
altogether; or

(2) substitute [3] .. [6] for: << a derivative work under copyright law,
in most jurisdictions, is the result of any intelligent, non-automated,
intellectually-novel transformation over an original work; this usually
includes extensions, corrections, editions, translations to other
languages, as well as many other types of modifications. >>

I hope this issue is cleared in the new version of the GPL, because this
language, that also occurs in the GPLv2, is the source of a great deal of
uncertainty that hinders the widespread usage of GPL'd software.

I thank you very much for all the great work you have done to further the
cause of Free Software, and for the attention I am certain this matter
will get,

Humberto Massa