Copyleft/guide Changeset - 9683b6ed0f33

Changeset - 9683b6ed0f33

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 16:53:45
bkuhn@ebb.org

Move one paragraph around, and revise another.

1 file changed with 18 insertions and 22 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 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.
 \section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
 % FIXME: These don't belong here, but it's closer to where it ought to be now.
 It is important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
 conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
 counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction.
 % FIXME: needs filled out and more here.
 Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge'' from what is now subsection 5b, the
 core copyleft provision, for reasons related to our current changes to the
 second paragraph of section 4: it had contributed to a misconception that the
 GPL did not permit charging for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the
 ``at no charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from
 third parties.  The removal of these words created the danger that the
 imposition of licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license
 violation.
 We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing
 fees or royalties in section 10.  This section is an appropriate place for
 such a clause, since it is a specific consequence of the general requirement
 that no further restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of
 GPL-covered code.
 % FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections.
 GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from GPLv2~\S2(b) (in GPLv3,~\S5(b))
 because it contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not permit
 charging for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the ``at no charge''
 wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third parties.  The
 removal of these words created the danger that the imposition of licensing
 fees would no longer be seen as a license violation.  Therefore, GPLv3~\S10
 adds a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing fees or royalties.
 This section is an appropriate place for such a clause, since it is a
 specific consequence of the general requirement that no further restrictions
 be imposed on downstream recipients of GPL-covered code.
 Careful readers of the GPL have suggested that its explicit prohibition
 against imposition of further restrictions\footnote{GPLv2, section 6; Draft
 , section 10, third paragraph.} has, or ought to have, implications for
 those who assert patents against other licensees.  Draft 2 took some steps to
 clarify this point in a manner not specific to patents, by describing the
@@ ... @@
 alleging that use of the work, or of any upstream GPLv3-licensed work on
 which the work is based, infringes a patent.
 \section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
 \label{GPLv3s11}
 % FIXME: These don't belong here, but it's closer to where it ought to be now.
 It is important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
 conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
 counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction.
 The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to
 section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are one of several ways in which
 software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
 from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
 approach to combatting the danger of patents.

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)