From 4cea1c46451f1acf096a80228220712c4da71822 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:44:59 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Relevant text from GPLv3 First Discussion Draft Rationale of 2006-01-16. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I carefully went through FSF's First Discussion Draft Rationale, which was published on Monday 16 January 2006 and merged in any relevant text and descriptions that might be of use in this tutorial. The raw material used for this commit can be found here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html Specifically, a copy of the LaTeX sources are here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.tex As I merged in this text, I added FIXME's where it seemed the text was incomplete or referred to parts of GPLv3 draft text that disappeared in later versions. Finally, note that this material was originally copyrighted and licensed as follows: Copyright © 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved. However, I am hereby relicensing this material to CC-By-SA-4.0, with the verbal permission from John Sullivan, Executive Director of the FSF, which was given to me during a conference call on Wednesday 12 February 2014. --- comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex | 2 +- gpl-lgpl.tex | 525 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 523 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex b/comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex index 717c1a4..32bc484 100644 --- a/comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex +++ b/comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ A Comprehensive Tutorial {\parindent 0in \begin{tabbing} -Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \kill +Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \kill Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \> \hspace{.2in} Bradley M. Kuhn. \\ Copyright \> \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005 \> \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\ Copyright \> \copyright{} 2008 \> \hspace{.2in} Software Freedom Law Center. \\ diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index e2131b1..af496d4 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ % gpl-lgpl.tex -*- LaTeX -*- % Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course % -% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -% Copyright (C) 2014 Bradley M. Kuhn +% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +% Copyright (C) 2014 Bradley M. Kuhn % License: CC-By-SA-4.0 @@ -28,12 +28,13 @@ {\parindent 0in \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{This part} is: \\ \begin{tabbing} -Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\ +Copyright \= \copyright{} 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 \= \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\ Copyright \= \copyright{} 2014 \= \hspace{.2in} Bradley M. Kuhn \\ \end{tabbing} Authors of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{this part} are: \\ +Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\ Bradley M. Kuhn \\ David ``Novalis'' Turner \\ Daniel B. Ravicher \\ @@ -2066,6 +2067,14 @@ copyright holders. Some have used GPLv2~\S8 to explain various odd special topics of distribution, but generally speaking, this section is not particularly useful and was actually removed in GPLv3. +% FIXME: integrate this into this section. + +To our knowledge, no one has invoked this section to add an explicit +geographical distribution limitation since GPLv2 was released in 1991. We +have concluded that this provision is not needed and is not expected to be +needed in the future, and that it therefore should be removed. + + %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty} @@ -2174,41 +2183,551 @@ GPLv3 that's possible is by default less than a decade. These two factors usually cause even new students of GPL to start with GPLv2 and move on to GPLv3, and this tutorial follows that pattern. +We recognize that, overall, the changes made in GPLv3 have increased the +complexity of the license. We would have liked to oblige those who have asked +us for a simpler and shorter GPL, but we had to give priority to making GPLv3 +do the job that needs to be done. + \section{GPLv3~\S0: Giving In On ``Defined Terms''} +% FIXME: intro defined terms + +% FIXME: rewrite to FOUR new terms + +Section 0 includes definitions of two new terms: ``covered work'' and +``propagate.'' The use of the term ``covered work'' enables some of the +wording in the revised GPL to be simpler and clearer. + +% FIXME: rewrite propagate + +The term ``propagate'' serves two purposes. First, ``propagate'' provides +a simple and convenient means for distinguishing between the kinds of +uses of a work that the GPL imposes conditions on and the kinds of +uses that the GPL does not (for the most part) impose conditions +on. + +Second, ``propagate'' furthers our goal of making the license as +global as possible in its wording and effect. When a work is licensed +under the GPL, the copyright law of some particular country will +govern certain legal issues arising under the license. A term like +``distribute,'' or its equivalent in languages other than English, is +used in several national copyright statutes. The scope of +``distribution'' in the copyright context can differ from country to +country. We do not wish to force on the GPL the specific meaning of +``distribution'' that exists under United States copyright law or any +other country's copyright law. + +We therefore define the term ``propagate'' by reference to activities +that require permission under ``applicable copyright law,'' but we +exclude execution and private modification from the definition. Our +definition gives examples of activities that may be included within +``propagation,'' but it also makes clear that, under the copyright laws +of a given country, ``propagation'' may include other activities as well. + +% FIXME: paragraph number change , and more on Convey once definition comes. + +The third paragraph of section 2 represents another effort to compensate for +variation in national copyright law. We distinguish between propagation that +enables parties other than the licensee to make or receive copies, and other +forms of propagation. As noted above, the meaning of ``distribution'' under +copyright law varies from country to country, including with respect to +whether making copies available to other parties (such as related public or +corporate entities) is ``distribution.'' ``Propagation,'' however, is a term +not tied to any statutory language. Propagation that does not enable other +parties to make or receive copies --- for example, making private copies or +privately viewing the program --- is permitted unconditionally. Propagation +that does enable other parties to make or receive copies is permitted as +``distribution,'' subject to the conditions set forth in sections 4--6. + +% FIXME: Appropriate Legal Notices + \section{GPLv3~\S1: Understanding CCS} +% FIXME: Talk briefly about importance of CCS and reference compliance guide + +% FIXME: reword source code a bit + +Section 1 retains GPLv2's definition of ``source code'' and adds an +explicit definition of ``object code'' as ``any non-source version of a +work.'' Object code is not restricted to a narrow technical meaning and +is to be understood broadly as including any form of the work other than +the preferred form for making modifications to it. Object code +therefore includes any kind of transformed version of source code, such +as bytecode. The definition of object code also ensures that licensees +cannot escape their obligations under the GPL by resorting to shrouded +source or obfuscated programming. + +% FIXME: More about CCS here. + +% FIXME: CCS Coresponding Source updated to newer definition in later drafts + +The definition of ``Complete Corresponding Source Code'' given in the +second paragraph of section 1 is as broad as necessary to protect users' +exercise of their rights under the GPL. We follow the definition with +particular examples to remove any doubt that they are to be considered +Complete Corresponding Source Code. We wish to make completely clear +that a licensee cannot avoid complying with the requirements of the GPL +by dynamically linking an add-on component to the original version of a +program. + +Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the +second paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to +protect users' freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd +program, or a modified version of such a program, might need to be +signed with a key or authorized with a code in order for it to run on +a particular machine and function properly. Similarly, a program that +produces digitally-restricted files might require a decryption code in +order to read the output. + +% FIXME: Standard Interface + +% FIXME: System Libraries: it's in a different place and changed in later drafts + +The final paragraph of section 1 revises the exception to the source code +distribution requirement in GPLv2 that we have sometimes called the system +library exception. This exception has been read to prohibit certain +distribution arrangements that we consider reasonable and have not sought to +prevent, such as distribution of gcc linked with a non-free C library that is +included as part of a larger non-free system. This is not to say that such +non-free libraries are legitimate; rather, preventing free software from +linking with these libraries would hurt free software more than it would hurt +proprietary software. + +As revised, the exception has two parts. Part (a) rewords the GPLv2 +exception for clarity but also removes the words ``unless that +component itself accompanies the executable.'' By itself, (a) would +be too permissive, allowing distributors to evade their +responsibilities under the GPL. We have therefore added part (b) to +specify when a system library that is an adjunct of a major essential +operating system component, compiler, or interpreter does not trigger +the requirement to distribute source code. The more low-level the +functionality provided by the library, the more likely it is to be +qualified for this exception. + \section{GPLv3~\S2: Basic Permissions} +% FIXME: phrase ``unmodified Program'' appears due to User Products exception + +We have included the first sentence of section 2 to further internationalize +the GPL. Under the copyright laws of some countries, it may be necessary for +a copyright license to include an explicit provision setting forth the +duration of the rights being granted. In other countries, including the +United States, such a provision is unnecessary but permissible. + +The first paragraph of section 2 also acknowledges that licensees under the +GPL enjoy rights of copyright fair use, or the equivalent under applicable +law. These rights are compatible with, and not in conflict with, the freedoms +that the GPL seeks to protect, and the GPL cannot and should not restrict +them. + +% FIXME: propagate and convey + +Section 2 distinguishes between activities of a licensee that are permitted +without limitation and activities that trigger additional requirements. The +second paragraph of section 2 guarantees the basic freedoms of privately +modifying and running the program. However, the right to privately modify and +run the program is terminated if the licensee brings a patent infringement +lawsuit against anyone for activities relating to a work based on the +program. + + \section{GPLv3~\S3: What Hath DMCA Wrought} \label{GPLv3s3} + +% FIXME: reference the section in DMCA about this, maybe already there in +% GPLv2 section? + +% FIXME: Wrong paragraph now. + +The second paragraph of section 3 declares that no GPL'd program is part of +an effective technological protection measure, regardless of what the program +does. Ill-advised legislation in the United States and other countries has +prohibited circumvention of such technological measures. If a covered work is +distributed as part of a system for generating or accessing certain data, the +effect of this paragraph is to prevent someone from claiming that some other +GPL'd program that accesses the same data is an illegal circumvention. + \section{GPLv3~\S4: Verbatim Copying} +% FIXME: there appear to be minor changes here in later drafts, fix that. + +Section 4 has been revised from its corresponding section in GPLv2 in light +of the new section 7 on license compatibility. A distributor of verbatim +copies of the program's source code must obey any existing additional terms +that apply to parts of the program. In addition, the distributor is required +to keep intact all license notices, including notices of such additional +terms. + \section{GPLv3~\S5: Modified Source} +% FIXME: 5(a) is slightly different in final version + +Section 5 contains a number of changes relative to the corresponding section +in GPLv2. Subsection 5a slightly relaxes the requirements regarding notice of +changes to the program. In particular, the modified files themselves need no +longer be marked. This reduces administrative burdens for developers of +modified versions of GPL'd software. + +Under subsection 5a, as in the corresponding provision of GPLv2, the notices +must state ``the date of any change,'' which we interpret to mean the date of +one or more of the licensee's changes. The best practice would be to include +the date of the latest change. However, in order to avoid requiring revision +of programs distributed under ``GPL version 2 or later,'' we have retained +the existing wording. + +% FIXME: It's now (b) and (c). Also, ``validity'' of proprietary +% relicensing? Give me a break. I'll fix that. + +Subsection 5b is the central copyleft provision of the license. It now +states that the GPL applies to the whole of the work. The license must be +unmodified, except as permitted by section 7, which allows GPL'd code to be +combined with parts covered by certain other kinds of free software licensing +terms. Another change in subsection 5b is the removal of the words ``at no +charge,'' which was often misinterpreted by commentators. The last sentence +of subsection 5b explicitly recognizes the validity of disjunctive +dual-licensing. + +% FIXME: 5d. Related to Appropriatey Legal notices + + +% follows 5d now, call it the ``final paragraph'' + +The paragraph following subsection 5c has been revised for clarity, but the +underlying meaning is unchanged. When independent non-derivative sections are +distributed for use in a combination that is a covered work, the whole of the +combination must be licensed under the GPL, regardless of the form in which +such combination occurs, including combination by dynamic linking. The final +sentence of the paragraph adapts this requirement to the new compatibility +provisions of section 7. + \section{GPLv3~\S6: Non-Source and Corresponding Source} +Section 6 of GPLv3, which clarifies and revises GPLv2 section 3, requires +distributors of GPL'd object code to provide access to the corresponding +source code, in one of four specified ways. As noted above, ``object code'' +in GPLv3 is defined broadly to mean any non-source version of a work. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Subsections 6a and 6b now apply specifically to distribution of object code +in a physical product. Physical products include embedded systems, as well as +physical software distribution media such as CDs. As in GPLv2, the +distribution of object code may either be accompanied by the machine-readable +source code, or it may be accompanied by a written offer to provide the +machine-readable source code to any third party. GPLv3 clarifies that the +medium for software interchange on which the machine-readable source code is +provided must be a durable physical medium. Subsection 6b does not prevent a +distributor from offering to provide source code to a third party by some +other means, such as transmission over a network, so long as the option of +obtaining source code on a physical medium is presented. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Subsection 6b revises the requirements for the written offer to provide +source code. As before, the offer must remain valid for at least three +years. In addition, even after three years, a distributor of a product +containing GPL'd object code must offer to provide source code for as long as +the distributor also continues to offer spare parts or customer support for +the product model. We believe that this is a reasonable and appropriate +requirement; a distributor should be prepared to provide source code if he or +she is prepared to provide support for other aspects of a physical product. + +% FIXME: 10x language is gone. + +Subsection 6b also increases the maximum permitted price for providing a copy +of the source code. GPLv2 stated that the price could be no more than the +cost of physically performing source distribution; GPLv3 allows the price to +be up to ten times the distributor's cost. It may not be practical to expect +some organizations to provide such copies at cost. Moreover, permitting such +organizations to charge ten times the cost is not particularly harmful, since +some recipient of the code can be expected to make the code freely available +on a public network server. We also recognize that there is nothing wrong +with profiting from providing copies of source code, provided that the price +of a copy is not so unreasonably high as to make it effectively unavailable. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Subsection 6c gives narrower permission than the corresponding subsection in +GPLv2. The option of including a copy of an offer received in accordance +with subsection 6b is available only for private distribution of object code; +moreover, such private distribution is restricted to ``occasional +non-commercial distribution.'' This subsection makes clear that a +distributor cannot comply with the GPL merely by making object code available +on a publicly-accessible network server accompanied by a copy of the written +offer to provide source code received from an upstream distributor. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +New subsection 6d, which revises the final paragraph of GPLv2 section 3, +addresses distribution of object code by offering access to copy the code +from a designated place, such as by enabling electronic access to a network +server. Subsection 6d clarifies that the distributor must offer equivalent +access to copy the source code ``in the same way through the same place.'' +This wording permits a distributor to offer a third party access to both +object code and source code on a single network portal or web page, even +though the access may include links to different physical servers. For +example, a downstream distributor may provide a link to an upstream +distributor's server and arrange with the operator of that server to keep the +source code available for copying for as long as the downstream distributor +enables access to the object code. This codifies what has been our +interpretation of GPLv2. + +%FIXME: 6e, peer-to-peer + + +% FIXME: Not final paragraph anymore. + +The final paragraph of section 6 takes account of the fact that the Complete +Corresponding Source Code may include added parts that carry non-GPL terms, +as permitted by section 7. + +% FIXME: update lock-down section to work with more recent drafts + +Though the definition of Complete Corresponding Source Code in the second +paragraph of section 1 is expansive, it is not sufficient to protect users' +freedoms in many circumstances. For example, a GPL'd program, or a modified +version of such a program, might need to be signed with a key or authorized +with a code in order for it to run on a particular machine and function +properly. Similarly, a program that produces digitally-restricted files might +require a decryption code in order to read the output. + +The third paragraph of section 1 addresses this problem by making clear that +Complete Corresponding Source Code includes any such encryption, +authorization, and decryption codes. By requiring the inclusion of this +information whenever the GPL requires distribution of Complete Corresponding +Source Code, we thwart efforts to obstruct the goals of the GPL, and we +ensure that users will remain in control over their own machines. We +recognize an exception where use of the program normally implies that the +user already has the codes. For example, in secure systems a computer owner +might possess any keys needed to run a program, while the distributor of the +program might not have the keys. + +% FIXME: installation information + +%FIXME: publicly documented format + \section{Understanding License Compatibility} \label{license-compatibility} +% FIXME: reword intro to license compatibility + +Another challenge facing the free software community is the proliferation of +incompatible free software licenses. Of course, we cannot make the GPL +compatible with all such licenses. GPLv3 contains provisions that are +designed to reduce license incompatibility by making it easier for developers +to combine code carrying non-GPL terms with GPL'd code. + + \section{GPLv3~\S7: Explicit Compatibility} +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +In GPLv3 we take a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with +code governed by the terms of other free software licenses. Our view, though +it was not explicitly stated in GPLv2 itself, was that GPLv2 allowed such +combinations only if the non-GPL licensing terms permitted distribution under +the GPL and imposed no restrictions on the code that were not also imposed by +the GPL. In practice, we supplemented this policy with a structure of +exceptions for certain kinds of combinations. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Section 7 of GPLv3 implements a more explicit policy on license +compatibility. It formalizes the circumstances under which a licensee may +release a covered work that includes an added part carrying non-GPL terms. We +distinguish between terms that provide additional permissions, and terms that +place additional requirements on the code, relative to the permissions and +requirements established by applying the GPL to the code. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Section 7 first explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with +additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies our +existing practice of regarding such licensing terms as compatible with the +GPL. A downstream user of a combined GPL'd work who modifies such an added +part may remove the additional permissions, in which case the broader +permissions no longer apply to the modified version, and only the terms of +the GPL apply to it. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, section 7 +extends the range of licensing terms with which the GPL is compatible. An +added part carrying additional requirements may be combined with GPL'd code, +but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in section 7. We +must, of course, place some limit on the kinds of additional requirements +that we will accept, to ensure that enhanced license compatibility does not +defeat the broader freedoms advanced by the GPL. Unlike terms that grant +additional permissions, terms that impose additional requirements cannot be +removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because no such user +would have the right to do so. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Under subsections 7a and 7b, the requirements may include preservation of +copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations +of the code, and different warranty disclaimers. Under subsection 7c, the +requirements may include limitations on the use of names of contributors and +on the use of trademarks for publicity purposes. In general, we permit these +requirements in added terms because many free software licenses include them +and we consider them to be unobjectionable. Because we support trademark fair +use, the limitations on the use of trademarks may seek to enforce only what +is required by trademark law, and may not prohibit what would constitute fair +use. + +% FIXME: 7d-f + +% FIXME: removing additional restrictions + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +Section 7 requires a downstream user of a covered work to preserve the +non-GPL terms covering the added parts just as they must preserve the GPL, as +long as any substantial portion of those parts is present in the user's +version. + + \section{GPLv3~\S8: A Lighter Termination} +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +GPLv2 provided for automatic termination of the rights of a person who +copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed a work in violation of the +license. Automatic termination can be too harsh for those who have committed +an inadvertent violation, particularly in cases involving distribution of +large collections of software having numerous copyright holders. A violator +who resumes compliance with GPLv2 would need to obtain forgiveness from all +copyright holders, but even to contact them all might be impossible. + +% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination + +Section 8 of GPLv3 replaces automatic termination with a non-automatic +termination process. Any copyright holder for the licensed work may opt to +terminate the rights of a violator of the license, provided that the +copyright holder has first given notice of the violation within 60 days of +its most recent occurrence. A violator who has been given notice may make +efforts to enter into compliance and may request that the copyright holder +agree not exercise the right of termination; the copyright holder may choose +to grant or refuse this request. + +% FIXME: needs to be updated to describe more complex termination + +If a licensee who is in violation of GPLv3 acts to correct the violation and +enter into compliance, and the licensee receives no notice of the past +violation within 60 days, then the licensee need not worry about termination +of rights under the license. + \section{GPLv3~\S9: Acceptance} +% FIXME + \section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License} +% FIXME + \section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing} \label{GPLv3s11} + +% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time. + +GPLv3 adds a new section on licensing of patents. GPLv2 relies on an implied +patent license. The doctrine of implied license is one that is recognized +under United States patent law but may not be recognized in other +jurisdictions. We have therefore decided to make the patent license grant +explicit in GPLv3. Under section 11, a redistributor of a GPL'd work +automatically grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license for +any patent claims held by the redistributor, if those claims would be +infringed by the work or a reasonably contemplated use of the work. + +% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time. + +The patent license is granted both to recipients of the redistributed work +and to any other users who have received any version of the work. Section 11 +therefore ensures that downstream users of GPL'd code and works derived from +GPL'd code are protected from the threat of patent infringement allegations +made by upstream distributors, regardless of which country's laws are held to +apply to any particular aspect of the distribution or licensing of the GPL'd +code. + +% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time. + +A redistributor of GPL'd code may benefit from a patent license that has been +granted by a third party, where the third party otherwise could bring a +patent infringement lawsuit against the redistributor based on the +distribution or other use of the code. In such a case, downstream users of +the redistributed code generally remain vulnerable to the applicable patent +claims of the third party. This threatens to defeat the purposes of the GPL, +for the third party could prevent any downstream users from exercising the +freedoms that the license seeks to guarantee. + +% FIXME: probably needs a lot of work, these provisions changed over time. + +The second paragraph of section 11 addresses this problem by requiring the +redistributor to act to shield downstream users from these patent claims. The +requirement applies only to those redistributors who distribute knowingly +relying on a patent license. Many companies enter into blanket patent +cross-licensing agreements. With respect to some such agreements, it would +not be reasonable to expect a company to know that a particular patent +license covered by the agreement, but not specifically mentioned in it, +protects the company's distribution of GPL'd code. + +% FIXME: does this still fit with the final retaliation provision? + +This narrowly-targeted patent retaliation provision is the only form of +patent retaliation that GPLv3 imposes by its own force. We believe that it +strikes a proper balance between preserving the freedom of a user to run and +modify a program, and protecting the rights of other users to run, modify, +copy, and distribute code free from threats by patent holders. It is +particularly intended to discourage a GPL licensee from securing a patent +directed to unreleased modifications of GPL'd code and then suing the +original developers or others for making their own equivalent modifications. + +Several other free software licenses include significantly broader patent +retaliation provisions. In our view, too little is known about the +consequences of these forms of patent retaliation. As we explain below, +section 7 permits distribution of a GPL'd work that includes added parts +covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain +kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section +2. + \section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S 7} +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +The wording in the first sentence of section 12 has been revised +slightly to clarify that an agreement, such as a litigation settlement +agreement or a patent license agreement, is one of the ways in which +conditions may be ``imposed'' on a GPL licensee that may contradict the +conditions of the GPL, but which do not excuse the licensee from +compliance with those conditions. This change codifies what has been +our interpretation of GPLv2. + +% FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. + +We have removed the limited severability clause of GPLv2 section 7 as a +matter of tactical judgment, believing that this is the best way to ensure +that all provisions of the GPL will be upheld in court. We have also removed +the final sentence of GPLv2 section 7, which we consider to be unnecessary. + \section{GPLv3~\S13: The Great Affero Compromise} +% FIXME + \section{GPLv3~\S14: So, When's GPLv4?} \label{GPlv2s14} + +% 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 + \section{GPLv3~\S15--17: Warranty Disclaimers and Liability Limitation} +No substantive changes have been made in sections 15 and 16. + +% FIXME: more, plus 17 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \chapter{The Lesser GPL}