@@ -3630,102 +3630,110 @@ does not automatically apply to all GPLv3'd works.
%% 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}
% FIXME Say more
No substantive change has been made in section 14. The wording of the section
has been revised slightly to make it clearer.
% FIXME; proxy
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: 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