Copyleft/guide Changeset - 1e0d39fe72b2

Changeset - 1e0d39fe72b2

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 9 years ago 2014-11-13 15:41:56
bkuhn@ebb.org

Integrate pasted text on GPLv3§10.

Most of this text was useful, particularly since there was a previous
FIXME here that GPLv3§10 was not extensively discussed.

However, the same footnote regarding Jaeger's opinion under German
copyright law applies to this text, so a reference back to it has herein
been added.

1 file changed with 27 insertions and 34 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 who remain in compliance have valid permissions for all actions
 (including modification and redistribution) even if their immediate upstream
 supplier of the software has been terminated for license
 violation\footnote{While this is legally true, as a practical matter, a
+violation\footnote{\label{German-reinstatement-footnote} While this is legally true, as a practical matter, a
   failure of ``complete, corresponding source'' (CCS) provisioning by an
   upstream could make it effectively impossible for a downstream party to
   engage in a commercial redistribution pursuant to
@@ ... / @@ -3602,39 +3602,32 @@ the working of the license. @@
 \section{GPLv3~\S10: Explicit Downstream License}
 \label{GPLv3s10}
 % 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-URGENT:
 Each time you redistribute a GPL’d program, the recipient automatically
 receives a license, under the terms of the GPL involved, from every upstream
 licensor whose copyrighted material is present in the work you
 redistribute. You can think of this as creating a three-dimensional rather
 than linear flow of license rights. Every recipient of the work is ``in
 privity,'' or is directly receiving a license from every licensor.
 This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to the working of
 copyleft. Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor
 independently terminates the license on violation.
 Parties further downstream from
 the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they don’t themselves commit
 infringing actions. Their licenses come directly from all the upstream
 holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching party who
 distributed to them. For the same reason, an infringer who acquires another
 copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights: once any
 upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for breach of
 its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient just by
 acquiring another copy.
 % FIXME-URGENT: end
 % FIXME-LATER: link up this paragraph to above sections.
 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
 GPLv3~\S10 is a generally straightforward section that ensures that everyone
 downstream receives licenses from all copyright holders.  Each time you
 redistribute a GPL'd program, the recipient automatically receives a license,
 under the terms of GPL, from every upstream licensor whose copyrighted
 material is present in the work you redistribute.  You could think of this as
 creating a three-dimensional rather than linear flow of license rights.
 Every recipient of the work is ``in privity,'' or is directly receiving a
 license from every licensor.
 This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to copyleft's
 function.  Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor
 independently terminates the license on violation.  Parties further
 downstream from the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they don't
 themselves commit infringing actions.  Their licenses come directly from all
 the upstream copyright holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching
 party who distributed to them.  For the same reason, an infringer who acquires
 another copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights:
 once any upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for
 breach of its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient
 just by acquiring another
 copy\footnote{Footnote~\ref{German-reinstatement-footnote} also applies here
   in discussion of GPLv3 just as it did in discussion of GPLv2.}
 Meanwhile, one specific addition in GPLv3 here in GPLv3~\S10 deserves special
 mention.  Specifically, GPLv3 removed the words ``at no charge'' from
 GPLv2~\S2(b) (which, BTW, became 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

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)