[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: