distributed to others, the freedom of recipients may be burdened by

additional requirements in violation of the GPL.  It can be seen that

additional permissions in other licenses do not raise any problems of license

compatibility.

% FIXME: minor rewrites needed

Section 7 relaxes the prohibition on further restrictions slightly by

enumerating, in subsection 7b, a limited list of categories of additional

requirements that may be placed on code without violating GPLv3.  The list

includes the items that were listed in Draft 1, though rewritten for clarity.

It also includes a new catchall category for terms that might not obviously

fall within one of the other categories but which are precisely equivalent to

GPLv3 conditions, or which deny permission for activities clearly not

permitted by GPLv3.  We have carefully considered but rejected proposals to

expand this list further.  We have also rejected suggestions, made by some

discussion committee members, that the Affero clause requirement (7d in Draft

1 and 7b4 in Draft 2) be removed, though we have revised it in response to

certain comments.  We are unwavering in our view that the Affero requirement

is a legitimate one, and we are committed to achieving compatibility of the

Affero GPL with GPLv3.

% FIXME: minor rewrites needed

A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the

licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only if that

requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b.  Placement of any

other kind of additional requirement continues to be a violation of the

license.  Additional requirements that are in the 7b list may not be removed,

but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports to include an additional

requirement not in the 7b list, the user may remove that requirement.  Here

we were particularly concerned to address the problem of program authors who

purport to license their works in a misleading and possibly

self-contradictory fashion, using the GPL together with unacceptable added

restrictions that would make those works non-free software.

\section{GPLv3~\S7: Explicit Compatibility}

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

In GPLv3 we take a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with

code governed by the terms of other free software licenses. Our view, though

it was not explicitly stated in GPLv2 itself, was that GPLv2 allowed such

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, we supplemented this policy with a structure of

exceptions for certain kinds of combinations.

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

Section 7 of GPLv3 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. We

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.

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

Section 7 first explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with

additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies our

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.

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, section 7

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 section 7. We

must, of course, place some limit on the kinds of additional requirements

that we will accept, to ensure that enhanced license compatibility does not

defeat the broader freedoms advanced by 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 no such user

would have the right to do so.

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

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: 7d-f

% FIXME:  removing additional restrictions

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

Section 7 requires a downstream user of a covered work to preserve the

non-GPL terms covering the added parts just as they must preserve the GPL, as

long as any substantial portion of those parts is present in the user's

version.

% FIXME: minor rewrites needed

Section 7 points out that GPLv3 itself makes no assertion that an additional

requirement is enforceable by the copyright holder.  However, section 7 makes

clear that enforcement of such requirements is expected to be by the

termination procedure given in section 8 of GPLv3.

% FIXME: better context, etc.

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}

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

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 would need to obtain forgiveness from all

copyright holders, but even to contact them all might be impossible.

% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination

Section 8 of GPLv3 replaces automatic termination with a non-automatic

termination process.  Any copyright holder for the licensed work may opt to

terminate the rights of a violator of the license, provided that the

copyright holder has first given notice of the violation within 60 days of

its most recent occurrence. A violator who has been given notice may make

efforts to enter into compliance and may request that the copyright holder

agree not exercise the right of termination; the copyright holder may choose

to grant or refuse this request.

% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination

If a licensee who is in violation of GPLv3 acts to correct the violation and

enter into compliance, and the licensee receives no notice of the past

violation within 60 days, then the licensee need not worry about termination

of rights under the license.

\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}

% FIXME

\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}

% FIXME

\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}

\label{GPLv3s11}

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

GPLv3 adds a new section on licensing of patents. GPLv2 relies on an implied

patent license. The doctrine of implied license is one that is recognized

under United States patent law but may not be recognized in other

jurisdictions. We have therefore decided to make the patent license grant

explicit in GPLv3. Under section 11, a redistributor of a GPL'd work

automatically grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license for

any patent claims held by the redistributor, if those claims would be

infringed by the work or a reasonably contemplated use of the work.

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

The patent license is granted both to recipients of the redistributed work

and to any other users who have received any version of the work. Section 11

therefore ensures that downstream users of GPL'd code and works derived from

GPL'd code are protected from the threat of patent infringement allegations

made by upstream distributors, regardless of which country's laws are held to

apply to any particular aspect of the distribution or licensing of the GPL'd

code.

% FIXME:  probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time.

A redistributor of GPL'd code may benefit from a patent license that has been

granted by a third party, where the third party otherwise could bring a

patent infringement lawsuit against the redistributor based on the