From a5bf35174cb255ace18a7a0fedcbe44531f9ceeb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:55:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Move one paragraph around, and revise another. --- gpl-lgpl.tex | 38 +++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 0ba499f..cb09653 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -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