The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2
Posted Sep 28, 2006 2:22 UTC (Thu) by xoddam
In reply to: The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause
Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
> The GPLv2 covers copyright, i.e., the right to copy the code.
The GPLv2 covers whatever copyright law covers in your country, including
preparation of derivative works if copyright covers that where you are.
> The current GPLv3 draft tries to limit what I can do with the
> code in the privacy of my own home.
The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the
permission it grants to modify. The GPL version 2 *ALSO* permits only
certain changes. If you do it in the privacy of your home, no-one is
going to sue you, not even if you do it to qmail or proprietary software
which you have no permission to modify whatsoever. That's fair use.
Exactly the same doctrine applies to making copies in the privacy of your
own home, but no-one will claim copyright doesn't grant an exclusive
right to make copies.
If you want to do it in a more public fashion, eg. by running a public
web service based on an unauthorised modification of a copyrighted work,
see a lawyer.
> > The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to
> > use the software applies to the *unmodified* version you received
> Yes. And that is where one of the "4 freedoms" is removed.
> And that's what I object to.
I'm sure you have a point here, but I'm not sure how it applies to
copyleft licences or to copyright law. The GPL has *always*, and
*deliberately*, prohibited certain things which the "4 freedoms" in their
broad interpretation allow. For instance removal of copyright notices
and the licence itself. The GPLv3 doesn't change this limited
restriction of freedom IN ANY WAY.
The Affero licence -- by relying heavily on the limited permission to
modify in the way that simple copyleft does not require -- does take
copyleft a step further than the GPL ever did. Many of us were not even
aware that copyright includes the exclusive right to make derivative
works -- I've argued the opposite myself on these pages -- so it is
indeed a qualitative change in the way copyright law is wielded. But
even so, it's not a major change to the kind of permission granted.
from your other reply:
> ... I have come to expect from zealots.
I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
called me a nasty name. I'm telling Teacher now.
to post comments)