Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org writes:
...and for any other information, just ask, or take a look at FSFE's page: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
I have two questions.
1. The bracketed clause in section 11:
At http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-28-gplv3-grandfather you can read:
"So, if the text in brackets is adopted for the final version of the license, it is true that this would grandfather in Novell. [..] After all, that deal would still be affected by the previous paragraph, forcing Microsoft to offer its patent protection to everyone instead of just Novell's customers."
How can both sentences be true? The first sentence says that the bracketed clause in section 11 would make the Novell-MS deal valid and the second sentence says that it would have still effects on the Novell-MS deal.
Can someone explain this to me and maybe point me to the corresponding text in the 3th draft of GPLv3?
2. Conveying Non-Source Forms
The new text in section 6 preventing "Tivosation" says:
"Network access may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network."
Does this mean that i would be able to modify the software on my video device but as a reaction the device could disable my access to the network which distributes the movies?
Draft 2 had this language:
"[..]that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)"
It seems something like this is missing in draft 3 to make sure that the devices will do the same tasks with modified software like it did before. Or have i missed something?
Best regards, Bjoern