For Approval: GPLv3

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Fri Aug 17 05:20:48 UTC 2007

Chris Travers wrote:
> I think we can all agree (including myself) that the voting machine
> issue is moot.  It had been raised to me by another developer and I
> posted it before I thought it through entirely.

Another reason is that the subcontractor exception probably applies
("You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having
them [...] provide you with facilities for running those works, provided
that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material
for which you do not control copyright.  Those thus making or running
the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under
your direction and control").  This would allow the state to forbid
modification by the county outside the scope of state election law.

> I would hope that people don't read this license quite in the way
> requiring additional rights be granted consumers as opposed to corporate
> users.

It doesn't discriminate by class of person/entity.  It discriminates by
class of good, and OSD doesn't address that.

> As I say, no reading of the GPL no matter how extensive forbids further
> restrictions from someone as part of an ongoing agreement relating to
> services.

The state doesn't even need to get anyone to "agree" not to tamper with
the machine.  It can simply penalize the county and/or workers under
applicable election law if tampering occurs.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list