For Approval: GPLv3
chris at metatrontech.com
Sat Aug 25 18:24:01 UTC 2007
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov at gmail.com> writes:
> I'm sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me.
As much as I share Alexander's opinions in other areas, I would agree.
My issues of copyright misuse concern the fact that the GPL v3
*requires* programmers to cede the rights to grant additional global
permissions to their works, effectively forcing programmers to grant an
ability to drop additional permissions to anyone who merely distributes
the software. It furthermore *requires* that programmers grant
distributors the *right* to restrict third party copyrights. Note that
no copyrights are obtained that I know of (IANAL) by merely conveying
the software (and mere conveyance is all that is required to relicense
under the GPL v3), Clauses in question are:
1) Section 6 opening paragraph (requirements on distributing
Corresponding Source including source for all dynamically linked
libraries as a whole under the same licnese)
2) Section 7 definitions of additional terms, additional permissions,
further restrictions, and an ability to remove any such permissions and
restrictions beyond those granted in the GPL v3 itself.
As a developer (IANAL), the issue that concerns me is as follows:
1) I distribute a new and cool application under the GPL v3.
2) MagaComp Software Systems Inc. (fictional software vendor), takes my
code and uses it to make their next closed-source proprietary application.
3) I sue for copyright infringement.
4) They prevail on a copyright misuse defense, and everyone who has
released code under the GPL v3 now finds the *restrictions* unenforceable.
5) Every other proprietary software company helps themselves to open
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss