Re: Final text of GPL v3

["Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk>]

In message <[🔎] 20070703015224.4614e0f0.frx@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco 
Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>
> > This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> > discussed.
> >
> > There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
> > or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a
> > good  chance the clause would be declared legally invalid.
>
> I cannot understand how it could be retroactive.
>
> Since the GNU GPL v3 has been released on 29 June 2007, no work has been
> licensed under its terms prior to 29 June 2007, and hence no provision
> can be retroactive.
> A company which entered in a discriminatory agreement prior to 28 March
> 2007, will find out that now is not allowed to distribute GPLv3ed works.
> What's retroactive about this?

It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember, but 
it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the extent that 
a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".

Certainly the feeling is that MS will get caught by this date thingy as 
a result of their deal with Novell.
> If a company entered prior to 1989 into a weird agreement forbidding the
> distribution of source code, would we say that GPL sections that mandate
> availability of source are retroactive?

In that case, they simply wouldn't be able to distribute GPL software, 
because they wouldn't be able to comply with the licence.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk