%% disappointed with our decision to allow Affero-like terms through

%% section 7, rather than adopt a condition for GPLv3.  Echoing their

%% concerns about the Affero GPL itself, they found fault with the wording

%% of the section 7 clause in both of the earlier drafts.  We drafted 7b4

%% at a higher level than its Draft 1 counterpart based in part on comments

%% from these developers. They considered the Draft 1 clause too closely

%% tied to the Affero mechanism of preserving functioning facilities for

%% downloading source, which they found too restrictive of the right of

%% modification.  The 7b4 rewording did not satisfy them, however. They

%% objected to its limitation to terms requiring compliance by network

%% transmission of source, and to the technically imprecise or inaccurate

%% use of the phrase ``same network session.''

%% We have concluded that any redrafting of the 7b4 clause would fail to

%% satisfy the concerns of both sets of its critics.  The first group

%% maintains that GPLv3 should do nothing about the problem of public

%% use. The second group would prefer for GPLv3 itself to have an

%% Affero-like condition, but that seems to us too drastic. By permitting

%% GPLv3-covered code to be linked with code covered by version 2 of the

%% Affero GPL, the new section 13 honors our original commitment to

%% achieving GPL compatibility for the Affero license.

%% Version 2 of the Affero GPL is not yet published.  We will work with

%% Affero, Inc., and with all other interested members of our community, to

%% complete the drafting of this license following the release of Draft 3,

%% with a goal of having a final version available by the time of our

%% adoption of the final version of GPLv3.  We hope the new Affero license

%% will satisfy those developers who are concerned about the issue of

%% public use of unconveyed versions but who have concerns about the

%% narrowness of the condition in the existing Affero license.

%% As the second sentence in section 13 indicates, when a combined work is

%% made by linking GPLv3-covered code with Affero-covered code, the

%% copyleft on one part will not extend to the other part.\footnote{The

%% plan is that the additional requirement of the new Affero license will

%% state a reciprocal limitation.} That is to say, in such combinations,

%% the Affero requirement will apply only to the part that was brought into

%% the combination under the Affero license.  Those who receive such a

%% combination and do not wish to use code under the Affero requirement may

%% remove the Affero-covered portion of the combination.

Meanwhile, those who criticize the permission to link with code under the Affero

GPL should recognize that most other free software licenses also permit

such linking. 

\section{GPLv3~\S14: So, When's GPLv4?}

\label{GPLv3s14}

No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section

has been revised slightly to make it clearer.

\section{GPLv3~\S15--17: Warranty Disclaimers and Liability Limitation}

No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16.

% FIXME: more, plus 17

% FIXME: Section header needed here about choice of law.

% FIXME: reword into tutorial

Some have asked us to address the difficulties of internationalization

by including, or permitting the inclusion of, a choice of law

provision.  We maintain that this is the wrong approach.  Free

software licenses should not contain choice of law clauses, for both

legal and pragmatic reasons.  Choice of law clauses are creatures of

contract, but the substantive rights granted by the GPL are defined

under applicable local copyright law. Contractual free software

licenses can operate only to diminish these rights.  Choice of law

clauses also raise complex questions of interpretation when works of

software are created by combination and extension.  There is also the

real danger that a choice of law clause will specify a jurisdiction

that is hostile to free software principles.

% FIXME: reword into tutorial, \ref to section 7.

Our revised version of section 7 makes explicit our view that the

inclusion of a choice of law clause by a licensee is the imposition of

an additional requirement in violation of the GPL.  Moreover, if a

program author or copyright holder purports to supplement the GPL with

a choice of law clause, section 7 now permits any licensee to remove

that clause.

% FIXME: does this need to be a section, describing how it was out then in

% then out then in? :)

We have removed from this draft the appended section on ``How to Apply These

Terms to Your New Programs.'' For brevity, the license document can instead

refer to a web page containing these instructions as a separate document.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{The Lesser GPL}

As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically

designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our

goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd

software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far