[OT?] GPL v3 FUD, was For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

> From a section 7 perspective, the BSDL is not an "additional permission".  
> It's an additional restriction, or a set of additional restrictions. 
...
>Technically, however, the BSDL contains additional restrictions
>in relation to the GPL, one of which is the preservation of the
>(relatively permissive) license notice. There's no additional permission
>that you can remove in the BSDL, because, even if you regard the
>permissions inside BSDL as "additional" in relation to GPLv3 (though I
>don't think this really matches the definition of "additional
>permission" given in section 7), they are bound to and inseparable from
>the license preservation requirement, which is an additional
>restriction. 
 
It is a weird set of doublethink to turn BSDL from additional permissions to additional restrictions vis a vis the GPL because you aren't allowed to remove the text that grants you permission to use the code.
 
However, restriction or not, it would seem that the preservation of the license notice could be seen/misinterpreted to fall under the ability to "add a restriction" via section 7b "Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it"
 
which could then be read/misinterpreted by a layperson (a.k.a. programmer) as removable via 
 
"If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."
 
Given the PySoy GPL V3 weirdness with Section 7 I'd say that particular section is subject to discussion/confusion/excessive silliness.  I'm going to guess PySoy's implementation of Section 7 exceeds the "intended reading" of Section 7 and stumbled into the realm of logoware.  IANAL, etc.

>From the perspective of a coder it's odd in the context of a software license that someone would argue on how something was "intended to be read" given that our trade instills a certain affinity for preciseness in statements because a compiler doesn't care what you intended.  Just what you typed.  Folks seeking to abuse your license care even less and can apply human intelligence toward trying to thwart your intentions.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071113/b2c6dce3/attachment.html>