@@ -3260,13 +3260,13 @@ copyright permissions the contributor granted to the licensee.
\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}
@@ -3362,13 +3362,13 @@ The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be
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.
@@ -3454,13 +3454,13 @@ 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
@@ -3491,17 +3491,17 @@ 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
@@ -3734,13 +3734,13 @@ 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