For Approval: GPLv3

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Thu Aug 30 21:29:16 UTC 2007

Chris Travers wrote:
> Section 2 of the GPL3 prevents sublicensing,  and section 7 specifies
> that additional permissions which affect the "work as a whole" are read
> as included in the license.  It also states that additional permissions
> may be stated in the license itself.  Thus it seems to me that GPL3 +
> additional permissions cannot be reduced to GPL3 because of the
> prohibition on sublicensing.

This makes no sense.  GPLv3 would not prohibit and allow something at
the same time.  I doubt any court would interpret it this way.

> If I add to my LICENSE.TXT a statement that says that a linking
> exception exists for such an interface or file, it seems that nobody
> could remove those except by permission of a copyright owner whose code
> was in that interface (someone who had modified the code).

They can remove the permission, but not the notice.  Now, removing the
permission has no practical effect for unmodified code.  But it is allowed.

> I have no problem with the approval of this license.  I
> do, however feel that we should *not* list the GPL2 as deprecated,
> superceded, or otherwise out of date.

I don't think anyone on this list has suggested that.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list