For Approval: GPLv3
chris at metatrontech.com
Sat Aug 25 18:50:21 UTC 2007
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Chris Travers <chris at metatrontech.com> writes:
>> As I understand it, if any part of the GPL v3 (particularly the
>> compulsion to relicense) were found to be a misuse of copyright law,
>> it would provide a defense against an attempt to enforce copyrights on
>> the works we create.
> How can the GPLv3 possibly cause copyright misuse, considering that
> the GPLv3 does not restrict any rights granted by copyright?
It does, though. It forces programmers who own copyrights to cede to
distributors the right to drop permissions not granted by the GPL v3.
These permissions can be dropped under the GPL v3 by anyone who merely
conveys the software, and they can be dropped on code that neither the
original author nor the distributor owns any copyrights to because they
don't affect derivative works but merely downstream distribution.
> The GPLv3 does not compel anybody to relicense anything. It just says
> that *if* you redistribute, you must not impose further restrictions
> on the code you distribute.
No. The opening 2 paragraphs of Section 7 grant anyone who conveys the
software the right to remove permissions beyond those of the GPL to any
part of the work. Since the Corresponding Source must be under the same
license, this means any file in the Corresponding Source either. And
all without the creation of any new copyrighted works...
This seems along the lines of using copyright to extend the rights
granted beyond those of mere copyright. IANAL though. The GPL v2 could
be interpreted to avoid this problem. The GPL v3 cannot.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss