Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Integrate pasted text on GPLv3§10.

Browse source 
Most of this text was useful, particularly since there was a previous
FIXME here that GPLv3§10 was not extensively discussed.

However, the same footnote regarding Jaeger's opinion under German
copyright law applies to this text, so a reference back to it has herein
been added.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-11-13 10:41:56 -05:00
parent 345da0fc2e
commit 1e0d39fe72
1 changed files with 25 additions and 32 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

57
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -2283,7 +2283,7 @@ redistributor. Two legal effects follow. First, downstream parties
who remain in compliance have valid permissions for all actions who remain in compliance have valid permissions for all actions
(including modification and redistribution) even if their immediate upstream (including modification and redistribution) even if their immediate upstream
supplier of the software has been terminated for license supplier of the software has been terminated for license
violation\footnote{While this is legally true, as a practical matter, a violation\footnote{\label{German-reinstatement-footnote} While this is legally true, as a practical matter, a
failure of ``complete, corresponding source'' (CCS) provisioning by an failure of ``complete, corresponding source'' (CCS) provisioning by an
upstream could make it effectively impossible for a downstream party to upstream could make it effectively impossible for a downstream party to
engage in a commercial redistribution pursuant to engage in a commercial redistribution pursuant to
@ -3602,39 +3602,32 @@ the working of the license.
\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License} \section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
\label{GPLv3s10} \label{GPLv3s10}
% FIXME-LATER: this is a punt: need more time to write! GPLv3~\S10 is a generally straightforward section that ensures that everyone
downstream receives licenses from all copyright holders. Each time you
redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license,
under the terms of GPL, from every upstream licensor whose copyrighted
material is present in the work you redistribute. You could think of this as
creating a three-dimensional rather than linear flow of license rights.
Every recipient of the work is ``in privity,'' or is directly receiving a
license from every licensor.
GPLv3~\S10 ensures that everyone downstream receives licenses from all This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to copyleft's
copyright holders. It really is a generally straightforward section. function. Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor
independently terminates the license on violation. Parties further
downstream from the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they don't
themselves commit infringing actions. Their licenses come directly from all
the upstream copyright holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching
party who distributed to them. For the same reason, an infringer who acquires
another copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights:
once any upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for
breach of its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient
just by acquiring another
copy\footnote{Footnote~\ref{German-reinstatement-footnote} also applies here
in discussion of GPLv3 just as it did in discussion of GPLv2.}
% FIXME-URGENT: Meanwhile, one specific addition in GPLv3 here in GPLv3~\S10 deserves special
mention. Specifically, GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from
Each time you redistribute a GPL’d program, the recipient automatically GPLv2~\S2(b) (which, BTW, became GPLv3~\S5(b)) because it contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not
receives a license, under the terms of the GPL involved, from every upstream
licensor whose copyrighted material is present in the work you
redistribute. You can think of this as creating a three-dimensional rather
than linear flow of license rights. Every recipient of the work is ``in
privity,'' or is directly receiving a license from every licensor.
This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to the working of
copyleft. Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor
independently terminates the license on violation.
Parties further downstream from
the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they don’t themselves commit
infringing actions. Their licenses come directly from all the upstream
holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching party who
distributed to them. For the same reason, an infringer who acquires another
copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights: once any
upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for breach of
its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient just by
acquiring another copy.
% FIXME-URGENT: end
% FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections.
Note, however, GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from GPLv2~\S2(b) (in
GPLv3,~\S5(b)) because it contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not
permit charging for distribution of copies. The purpose of the ``at no permit charging for distribution of copies. The purpose of the ``at no
charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third
parties. The removal of these words created the danger that the imposition parties. The removal of these words created the danger that the imposition