For Approval: GPLv3

[Chris Travers]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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.
>   

If you are essentially removing the permission, aren't you 
sublicensing?  Suppose for the moment there is no public license 
(limited distribution, one of the recipients removes permissions, so no 
argument that the author has granted permission to do otherwise to the 
public).

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070830/cfef2ab0/attachment.vcf>