Re: Final text of GPL v3
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Final text of GPL v3
- From: Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:42:39 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20070630220645.GF4404@dario.dodds.net> (Steve Langasek's message of "Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:06:45 -0700")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070630220645.GF4404@dario.dodds.net>
* Steve Langasek:
>> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
>> restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
>> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
>> governed by this License along with a term that is a further
>> restriction, you may remove that term.
> WTF, seriously?
Yeah, totally my reaction as well.
> Reading this makes me want to go write some new code, license it
> under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and
> watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional
> restriction has no legal force.
The "GPL version 2 or later" case is even more interesting. 8-)
>> If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
>> and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
>> to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
>> publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
>> then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
>> available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
>> patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
>> consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
>> license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
>> actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
>> covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
>> in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
>> country that you have reason to believe are valid.
> Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have to
> do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires source
> code availability?
Not to the general public, no.
> How does making the source code available help the patent problem?
If you the license requires to publish the source code, other
provisions in the license apply.
> What does (2) really mean? How can one "arrange to deprive
> [oneself] of the benefit of the patent license" -- by goading the
> licensor into suing you? :)
This is quite bizarre. It might mean that you could implement a
workaround for the patent, or distribute it in a jurisdiction where
the patent does not apply or something like that. What does the
rationale say about this?
>> 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
>> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
>> permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
>> under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
>> combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
>> License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
>> but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
>> section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
>> combination as such.
> Hmm, so maybe when I license my software with an extra restriction, this is
> what I'll restrict. ;)
But version 3 doesn't allow this, does it?