For Approval: GPLv3

[Richard Fontana]

Chris Travers wrote:
>> As to voting machines, one need not even reach this issue under GPLv3.
>>  
> Furthermore, even if one does, nothing prevents a state from conveying
> such software to counties and then issuing further restrictions as a
> condition for accepting the votes as valid.  

I'm not sure, but I don't think a county administration should be seen
as a separate entity from a state government for copyright law purposes.

> I think we can all agree (including myself) that the voting machine
> issue is moot.  It had been raised to me by another developer and I
> posted it before I thought it through entirely.
>
> I would hope that people don't read this license quite in the way
> requiring additional rights be granted consumers as opposed to corporate
> users.  That would seem to be discriminating against a class of persons
> (though not a class of natural persons) and would be possible an OSD
> conflict depending on how one reads the OSD (but it is still unfair to
> corporate entities in that they are granted fewer rights than natural
> persons).

Indeed, that would be an incorrect reading of GPLv3. Section 6, in
defining "consumer product", states:

 For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally
 used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product,
 regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which
 the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use,
 the product.

(This statement distills a principle in case law interpreting the
Magnuson-Moss Act definition of "consumer product".)

I'd also point out that a number of OSI-approved licenses make
distinctions between commercial and non-commercial users in various ways.

--
Richard E. Fontana
Counsel
Software Freedom Law Center
tel. [phone]
fax  [phone]

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:
> I think we can all agree (including myself) that the voting machine
> issue is moot.  It had been raised to me by another developer and I
> posted it before I thought it through entirely.

Another reason is that the subcontractor exception probably applies
("You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having
them [...] provide you with facilities for running those works, provided
that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material
for which you do not control copyright.  Those thus making or running
the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under
your direction and control").  This would allow the state to forbid
modification by the county outside the scope of state election law.

> I would hope that people don't read this license quite in the way
> requiring additional rights be granted consumers as opposed to corporate
> users.

It doesn't discriminate by class of person/entity.  It discriminates by
class of good, and OSD doesn't address that.

> As I say, no reading of the GPL no matter how extensive forbids further
> restrictions from someone as part of an ongoing agreement relating to
> services.

The state doesn't even need to get anyone to "agree" not to tamper with
the machine.  It can simply penalize the county and/or workers under
applicable election law if tampering occurs.

Matt Flaschen