@@ -3254,25 +3254,25 @@ terminated by the copyright holder are ``automatically reinstated''.
Finally, if a licensee violates the GPL, a contributor may terminate any
patent licenses that it granted under GPLv3~\S11, in addition to any
copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.
% FIXME-LATER: write more here, perhaps linking up to enforcement
\section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance}
GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither
requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL. Speaking more
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured our license as a unilateral grant
broadly, GPLv3 is intentionally structured as a unilateral grant
of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any
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-LATER: this is a punt: need more time to write!
GPLv3~\S10 ensures that everyone downstream receives licenses from all
copyright holders. It really is a generally straightforward section.
@@ -3356,25 +3356,25 @@ or transformation, and (2) it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast
patent assets to exercise requisite diligence in reviewing all the
GPL-covered software that it provides to others. Some expressed particular
concern about the consequences of ``inadvertent'' distribution.
The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be
``disproportionate'', that is to say unfair, is not valid. Since
software patents are weapons that no one should have, and using them for
aggression against free software developers is an egregious act (thus
preventing that act cannot be unfair).
However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense. A
typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs. It would
be quite difficult for a redistributor with a large patent portfolio to
be quite difficult for a re-distributor with a large patent portfolio to
review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
and passes on a new version of the distribution. Moreover, this question
raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements
convince patent-holding companies to remain outside the distribution
path of all GPL-covered software, then these requirements, no matter how
strong, will cover few patents.
GPLv3 therefore makes a partial concession
which would lead these companies to feel secure in doing the
distribution themselves. GPLv3~\S11
applies only to those distributors that have
modified the program. The other changes we have made in sections 10 and
@@ -3448,25 +3448,25 @@ Ideally, this contributor patent policy will result in fairly frequent licensing
claims by contributors. A contributor is charged with awareness of the fact
that it has modified a work and provided it to others; no act of contribution
should be treated as inadvertent. GPLv3's rule also requires no more work, for a
contributor, than the weaker rule proposed by the patent holders. Under
their rule, the contributor must always compare the entire work against its
patent portfolio to determine whether the combination of the modifications
with the remainder of the work cause it to read on any of the contributor's
patent claims.
\subsection{Conveyors' Patent Licensing}
The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are
granted by conveyance. The licensing is not as complete or far reaching at
granted by conveyance. The licensing is not as complete or far reaching as
the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.
The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be
confined to agreements formally identified or classified as patent licenses.
GPLv3~\S11\P3 makes this clear by defining ``patent
license,'' for purposes of the subsequent three paragraphs, as ``any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement)''
% FIME-LATER: I want to ask Fontana about this before adding it.
@@ -3485,29 +3485,29 @@ downstream and making (possibly patent-encumbered) CCS publicly available.
Simply put, in nearly all cases in which the ``knowingly relying'' test is
met, the patent license will indeed not be sublicensable or generally
available to all on free terms. If, on the other hand, the patent license is
generally available under terms consistent with the requirements of the GPL,
the distributor is automatically in compliance, because the patent license
has already been extended to all downstream recipients. Finally, if the
patent license is sublicensable on GPL-consistent terms, the distributor may
choose to grant sublicenses to downstream recipients instead of causing the
CCS to be publicly available. (In such a case, if the distributor is also a
contributor, it will already have granted a patent sublicense anyway, and so
it need not do anything further to comply with the third paragraph.)
Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required in by other
Admittedly, public disclosure of CCS is not necessarily required by other
sections of the GPL, and the FSF in drafting GPLv3 did not necessarily wish
to impose a general requirement to make source code available to all, which
has never been a GPL condition. However, many vendors who produce products
that include copylefted software, and who most likely to be affected by the
that include copylefted software, and who are most likely to be affected by the
downstream shielding provision, lobbied for the addition of the source code
availability option, so it remains.
Meanwhile, two specific alternatives to the source code availability option
are also available. The distributor may comply by disclaiming the patent
license it has been granted for the conveyed work, or by arranging to extend
the patent license to downstream recipients\footnote{The latter option, if
chosen, must be done ``in a manner consistent with the requirements of this
License''; for example, it is unavailable if extension of the patent
license would result in a violation of GPLv3~\S 12.}. The GPL is intended
to permit private distribution as well as public distribution, and the
addition of these options ensures that this remains the case, even though it
@@ -3728,25 +3728,25 @@ No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16.
% FIXME-LATER: does this need to be a section, describing how it was out then in
% then out then in? :)
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
goal in designing the 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.