GPL License with clause for Web use?

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> writes:
>> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
>
> Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.

That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
can be added.

I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
clear over and over again.

Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
solve some licence incompatibility issues.

> FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
> the wrong way to fix this,

You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 

And I don't agree that categories.html was FSF's "basic guidance".  The Free
Software Definition is a core document, but not categories.html.

> Instead, try apologising and issuing corrections...

You could be right here.  This might warrant an "Oops.  Thanks for noticing
that.  Fixed."

I've already sent the mail to FSF suggesting that this wording be fixed.  If
you like, I can right a follow up mail saying that you would like an
official "Oops, fixed" email.

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \     Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \      http://www.fsfe.org