Re: GPL v3 Draft
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>> 7. License Compatibility.
>> Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited kinds of
>> additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:
>> d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that
>> allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding
>> Source Code.
> I really miss an option to require licensors not to make my programs
> unfree by using this option d)
Well, yes. But at least it looks like all GPLv3-covered code will not
_automatically_ be non-free because of an unconditional Aferro clause.
We might need to be thankful for small mercies ...
>> 11. Licensing of Patents.
>>
>> When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to
>> the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work,
>> permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all
...
> This is really a bit harsh. Especially that automatism. Why not disallow
> them to distribute unless they give such a license?
I don't think the automatism will hold up in many courts. A
third-party prediction that "you are going to do such-and-such" sounds
less legally dependable than the good old "you must do such-and-such,
or else!".
--
Henning Makholm "What the hedgehog sang is not evidence."
Reply to: