@@ -3673,83 +3673,82 @@ 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: more, plus 17
% FIXME-LATER: 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.
Finally, the FSF shortened the section on ``How to Apply These
Terms to Your New Programs'' to just the bare essentials.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\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