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

Re: Final text of GPL v3

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

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.

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Reply to: