On 12/04/2012 11:29 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:05:57PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
(iv) the Source Code of shared libraries that the Covered Work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those libraries and parts of the Covered Work;
Are you going to define what is meant by "intimate data communication or control flow"? I could imagine that being considered somewhat vague.... and things which are vague that can only be settled by a lawsuit is, in my mind, unfortunate....
This is a bit of the GPLv3 definition I have left intact. I don't think I can improve on it (maybe someone else can), and I don't want the Corresponding Source definition to get even longer, so, assuming it's not improved on, I think it's a matter of either keeping it or deleting it. It is a kind of codification of FSF interpretation of GPLv2 (I think the term 'intimate' is used in the FSF's GNU licenses FAQ).
Notice that during the drafting of GPLv3 "intimate" was replaced with "complex" in response to people complaining that they couldn't figure out what "intimate" meant, but then people complained about "complex". I recall being the one who suggested returning to "intimate" since it seemed more suggestive of what the FSF was trying to express than "complex", and I sort of liked the eccentricity of it (indeed I still do).
Actually I'm curious to know Bradley's view on whether the 'intimate' clause is worth keeping or not. I imagine that, were it in GPLv2, it would not have much relevance for the typical GPLv2 enforcement situation.
- RF