Changeset - a5bf35174cb2
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-20 22:55:29
bkuhn@ebb.org
Move one paragraph around, and revise another.
1 file changed with 18 insertions and 22 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -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.
 

	
 
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.
 
% 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.
 

	
 
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
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)