Ok, buy enough posts over the net on GPLv3. Now my 5 cents on the content issues. I have three of them:
1. Digital restrictions management. First of all, prostate I sincerely hope that the term chosen by Stallman gets more widespread acceptance. It’s not about rights but restrictions, since DRM typically extends “rights” out of copyright’s scope. That GPL is incompatible with DRM should be clear thus by definition: GPL covers copyright and will never expand any further. The notion that GPLv3 code does not constitute an “effective technological measure” is a nice direct reference to the critical language in EU copyright directive: if it would be “effective”, then all the DRM restrictions in that directive would apply. Now, the directive is circumvented.
2. Patent licensing. The default approach taken is very good. There are other licenses, which try to prevent the starting of patent lawsuits. Stallman seems to assume that suits may have other purposes than attacking free software. The approach should make the big patent holders feel safer with their portfolios without underminig free software in any way.
3. Copyleft provision. It is now clearer and, most importantly, the coverage is not extended. There were fears that they would try to extend copyleft to network (or public) use on the Internet (client-server model). Again, big companies should feel safe that the client-server model continues to be an accepted free software business model.
All in all, the content of the current draft is great and I do support it. My major reservations concern the language used.