GPLv3~\S9 means what it says: mere receipt or execution of code neither

requires nor signifies contractual acceptance under the GPL.  Speaking more

of copyright permissions, the basic operation of which exists outside of any

law of contract.  Whether and when a contractual relationship is formed

between licensor and licensee under local law do not necessarily matter to

However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense.  A

typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs.  It would

review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives

and passes on a new version of the distribution.  Moreover, this question

raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements

\subsection{Conveyors' Patent Licensing}

The remaining patent licensing in GPLv3 deals with patent licenses that are

the contributor patent licenses discussed in the preceding section.

The term ``patent license,'' as used in GPLv3~\S11\P4--6, is not meant to be

contributor, it will already have granted a patent sublicense anyway, and so

it need not do anything further to comply with the third paragraph.)

sections of the GPL, and the FSF in drafting GPLv3 did not necessarily wish

to impose a general requirement to make source code available to all, which

has never been a GPL condition.  However, many vendors who produce products

downstream shielding provision, lobbied for the addition of the source code

availability option, so it remains.

As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically

designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our

software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far

as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.