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

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
> errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
> works, it causes endless trouble.

That perfectly describes my problem with the clause as written.

> Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
> restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."
> This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it avoids 
> restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.
> A restriction along these lines would mean that
> (1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works
> (2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all 
> its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), 
> you have no additional obligations
> (3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local 
> server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it 
> probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those 
> users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies.
> What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
> clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
> to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
> this replace the proposed (7d).

I believe this clause addresses the issue perfectly, and I agree with
proposing it as a replacement.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: