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

Move one paragraph around, and revise another.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 18:55:29 -04:00 committed by donaldr3
parent 8e06bdea08
commit 9683b6ed0f
1 changed files with 17 additions and 21 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

38
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -3269,28 +3269,18 @@ the working of the license.
\section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
% FIXME: These don't belong here, but it's closer to where it ought to be now.
% FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections.
It is important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction.
% FIXME: needs filled out and more here.
Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge'' from what is now subsection 5b, the
core copyleft provision, for reasons related to our current changes to the
second paragraph of section 4: it had 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.
We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition of licensing
fees or royalties in section 10. 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.
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
@ -3313,6 +3303,12 @@ which the work is based, infringes a patent.
\section{GPLv3~\S11: Explicit Patent Licensing}
\label{GPLv3s11}
% FIXME: These don't belong here, but it's closer to where it ought to be now.
It is important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction.
The patent licensing practices that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to
section 12 of GPLv3) was designed to prevent are one of several ways in which
software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users