Changeset - 484ca88b811b
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
donaldr3 - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 22:40:50
donald@copyrighteous.office.fsf.org
remove extra words
1 file changed with 2 insertions and 2 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -3174,97 +3174,97 @@ itself, but treated as a license interpretation matter by the FSF) held that GPL
 
combinations only if the non-GPL licensing terms permitted distribution under
 
the GPL and imposed no restrictions on the code that were not also imposed by
 
the GPL\@.  In practice, the FSF historically supplemented that policy with a structure of
 
exceptions for certain kinds of combinations.
 

	
 
GPLv3~\S7  implements a more explicit policy on license
 
compatibility.  It formalizes the circumstances under which a licensee may
 
release a covered work that includes an added part carrying non-GPL terms. 
 
GPLv3~\S7 distinguish between terms that provide additional permissions, and terms that
 
place additional requirements on the code, relative to the permissions and
 
requirements established by applying the GPL to the code.
 

	
 
As discussed in the previous section of this tutorial, GPLv3~\S7 first and foremost explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with
 
additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies the
 
existing practice of regarding such licensing terms as compatible with the
 
GPL\@. A downstream user of a combined GPL'd work who modifies such an added
 
part may remove the additional permissions, in which case the broader
 
permissions no longer apply to the modified version, and only the terms of
 
the GPL apply to it.
 

	
 
In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, GPLv3\S7
 
extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible.  An
 
added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code,
 
but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in GPLv3\S7. There
 
are, of course,  limits on the acceptable additional requirements, which to
 
are, of course,  limits on the acceptable additional requirements, which 
 
ensures that enhanced license compatibility does not
 
defeat the broader software-freedom-defending terms of the GPL\@. Unlike terms that grant
 
additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be
 
removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because only in the
 
pathological case\footnote{Theoretically, a user could collect copyright
 
  assignment from all known contributors and then do this, but this would
 
  indeed be the pathological case.}  would a user have the right to do so.
 

	
 
% FIXME-LATER: It would be good to have detailed info on each of 7a-f.
 
%              Here's some commented-out text that might be useful for 7a-b
 

	
 
%% Under subsections 7a and 7b, the requirements may include preservation of
 
%% copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations
 
%% of the code, and different warranty disclaimers. Under subsection 7c, the
 
%% requirements may include limitations on the use of names of contributors and
 
%% on the use of trademarks for publicity purposes. In general, we permit these
 
%% requirements in added terms because many free software licenses include them
 
%% and we consider them to be unobjectionable. Because we support trademark fair
 
%% use, the limitations on the use of trademarks may seek to enforce only what
 
%% is required by trademark law, and may not prohibit what would constitute fair
 
%% use.
 

	
 
% FIXME-LATER:  Say removing additional restrictions
 

	
 
% FIXME-LATER: This text may be useful later:
 

	
 
%% Some have questioned whether section 7 is needed, and some have suggested
 
%% that it creates complexity that did not previously exist.  We point out to
 
%% those readers that there is already GPLv2-licensed code that carries
 
%% additional terms.  One of the objectives of section 7 is to rationalize
 
%% existing practices of program authors and modifiers by setting clear
 
%% guidelines regarding the removal and addition of such terms.  With its
 
%% carefully limited list of allowed additional requirements, section 7
 
%% accomplishes additional objectives, permitting the expansion of the base of
 
%% code available for GPL developers, while also encouraging useful
 
%% experimentation with requirements we do not include in the GPL itself.
 

	
 
\section{GPLv3~\S8: A Lighter Termination}
 

	
 
GPLv2 provided for automatic termination of the rights of a person who
 
copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed a work in violation of the
 
license.  Automatic termination can be too harsh for those who have committed
 
an inadvertent violation, particularly in cases involving distribution of
 
large collections of software having numerous copyright holders.  A violator
 
who resumes compliance with GPLv2 technically needs to obtain forgiveness
 
from all copyright holders, and even contacting them all might be impossible.
 

	
 
GPLv3~\S8 replaces now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent
 
GPLv3~\S8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent
 
reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited
 
opportunity to cure license violations.  If a licensee has committed a
 
first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but
 
the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice
 
of the violation, then any of the licensee's GPL rights that have been
 
terminated by the copyright holder are ``automatically reinstated''.
 

	
 

	
 
Finally, if a licensee violates the GPL, a contributor may terminate any
 
patent licenses that it granted under GPLv3~\S11, in addition to any
 
copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.
 

	
 
% FIXME-LATER: write more here, perhaps linking up to enforcement
 

	
 

	
 
\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}
 

	
 
GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither
 
requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL.  Speaking more
 
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured our license as a unilateral grant
 
of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any
 
law of contract.  Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed
 
between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to
 
the working of the license.
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)