Steve Langasek wrote:
WTF, seriously? 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. Not non-free, just incredibly goofy; I understand the motivation, I just don't see how anyone would actually think this would address the problem.
It certainly addresses the problem. Let's look at the two possibilities: Before: GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X Restriction: you can't do X Result - conflict and confusion; non-redistributable code After: GPL (either explicitly or implicitly): you can do X GPL: If I say you can't do X, you can ignore me Restriction: you can't do XResult - the license is consistent, although it has one part which nullifies another part. This is similar to clauses of the form "The previous part of this clause does not apply if you are wearing blue underwear".
If you (in your example) license under GPLv3 + restriction, then by picking GPLv3 you are giving me, the recipient of the code, permission to remove the restriction. If you didn't want to give me that permission, you shouldn't have used GPLv3 - just as if you didn't want to give me permission to link my code with the Affero GPL (to take one example of many), you shouldn't have used GPLv3.
Gerv