On 08/05/2012 10:30 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
I've proposed another patch (attached), removing the [any] and
bringing
in other parts of my original patch that Fontana removed. As mentioned
elsewhere in the thread, I suggest that we make this just a
clarification of GPLv2 (sans authorization-keys issue), and I believe
we'll be well on the way to that with the attached patch, which is also
in this merge request:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/14
[Luis Villa:]
> I've never been sure what "control" means in this
context. Given that
> "perform" is probably broad enough to completely encompass
"control,"
> and given how comprehensive the list of tasks is now (it's arguably
> impossible to "perform" a build without some form of control) I'd be
> inclined to replace "control and perform" with simply "perform,"
or
> else give a more specific definition of "control" (e.g, by reference
> to configuration files.)
I actually think "scripts used to control compilation and installation
of the executable" is effectively the same as what I wrote in my
original patch, but I've seen weasely lawyers argue otherwise to defend
their GPL-violating clients, so I
think we need as much text in there as possible. We should keep adding
verbs until we can't think of any more. The sharks on the other side
will keep coming up with new verbs to tell us they're *so* different, just
to help their client get away with violating the GPL.
I have accepted most of *this* patch except for Bradley's introduction
of the term "know-how", which I want to do some more research on, as
it is commonly used in technology license agreements (where it seems
it typically is a defined term). Of course I welcome any discussion
about it or the rest of this patch here
Note that I do not necessarily endorse the characterization of any
persons as "weasels" or "sharks".
- Richard