From 79405042169b5df2fa4ffeb865e009200119707d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:14 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Finish section. --- gpl-lgpl.tex | 25 +++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index cb09653..3cb3838 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -3269,18 +3269,23 @@ 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. + % FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections. -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 charge'' -wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third parties. The -removal of these words created the danger that the imposition of licensing -fees would no longer be seen as a license violation. Therefore, GPLv3~\S10 -adds a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing fees or royalties. -This section is an appropriate place for such a clause, since it is a -specific consequence of the general requirement that no further restrictions -be imposed on downstream recipients of GPL-covered code. +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 +charge'' wording was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third +parties. The removal of these words created the danger that the imposition +of licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license violation. Therefore, +GPLv3~\S10 adds a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing fees or +royalties. This section is an appropriate place for such a clause, since it +is a specific consequence of the general requirement that no further +restrictions be imposed on downstream recipients of GPL-covered code. Careful readers of the GPL have suggested that its explicit prohibition against imposition of further restrictions\footnote{GPLv2, section 6; Draft