%% 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.

It's unclear when the FSF might consider publishing GPLv4.  However, this

section makes it clear that the FSF is the sole authority who can decide

such.

The main addition to this section allows a third-party proxy to be appointed

by contributors who wish someone else to make relicensing to new versions of

GPL when they are released.  This is a ``halfway'' point between using ``-only''

or ``-or-later'' by consolidating the decision-making on that issue to a

single authority.

% FIXME-LATER: better proxy description

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

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

% 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? :)

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

\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

as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.

However, while the strategic goal is to bring as much Free Software

into the world as possible, particular tactical considerations

regarding software freedom dictate different means. Extending the

copyleft effect as far as copyright law allows is not always the most

prudent course in reaching the goal. In particular situations, even

those of us with the goal of building a world where all published

software is Free Software realize that full copyleft does not best

serve us. The GNU Lesser General Public License (``GNU LGPL'') was

designed as a solution for such situations.

\section{The First LGPL'd Program}

The first example that FSF encountered where such altered tactics were

needed was when work began on the GNU C Library. The GNU C Library would

become (and today, now is) a drop-in replacement for existing C libraries.

On a Unix-like operating system, C is the lingua franca and the C library

is an essential component for all programs. It is extremely difficult to

construct a program that will run with ease on a Unix-like operating

system without making use of services provided by the C library --- even

if the program is written in a language other than C\@. Effectively, all

user application programs that run on any modern Unix-like system must

make use of the C library.

By the time work began on the GNU implementation of the C libraries, there

were already many C libraries in existence from a variety of vendors.

Every proprietary Unix vendor had one, and many third parties produced

smaller versions for special purpose use. However, our goal was to create

a C library that would provide equivalent functionality to these other C

libraries on a Free Software operating system (which in fact happens today

on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).

Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing

implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under GPL were

somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never

themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were

released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for

the GNU/Linux platform be released under GPL\@.