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

Rewrite text on GPLv3§7.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-20 18:25:39 -04:00 committed by donaldr3
parent cfde3638b1
commit dc7f0fea56
1 changed files with 22 additions and 27 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

45
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -3165,47 +3165,42 @@ additional requirements in violation of the GPL. It can be seen that
additional permissions in other licenses do not raise any problems of license
compatibility.
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
GPLv3 took a new approach to the issue of combining GPL'd code with
code governed by the terms of other software freedom licenses. Traditional
GPLv2 license compatibility theory (which was not explicitly stated in GPLv2
itself, but treated as a license interpretation matter by the FSF) held 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
the GPL\@. In practice, the FSF historically supplemented that 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
GPLv3~\S7 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
release a covered work that includes an added part carrying non-GPL terms.
GPLv3~\S7 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
As discussed in the previous section of this tutorial, GPLv3~\S7 first and foremost explicitly allows added parts covered by terms with
additional permissions to be combined with GPL'd code. This codifies the
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
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
In its treatment of terms that impose additional requirements, GPLv3\S7
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
but only if those requirements belong to an set enumerated in GPLv3\S7. There
are, of course, limits on the acceptable additional requirements, which to
ensures that enhanced license compatibility does not
defeat the broader software-freedom-defending terms of 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.
removed by a downstream user of the combined GPL'd work, because only in the
pathological case\footnote{Theoretically, a user could collect copyright
assignment from all known contributors and then do this, but this would
indeed be the pathological case.} would a user have the right to do so.
Under subsections 7a and 7b, the requirements may include preservation of
copyright notices, information about the origins of the code or alterations