For Approval: GPLv3

[Wilson, Andrew]

> Chris Travers wrote:
>>Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> 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).

No.  Chris, it appears you haven't grokked the basic nature of
sec. 7 additional permissions in v3.  They are additional permissions
which are granted by an original licensor (presumably the copyright
holder) on top of the terms and conditions of GPLv3.  There
is, ipso facto, a "public license" involved.

Additional permissions may not be granted by a downstream distributee
whose
only license to the code is GPL.  On the other hand, any downstream
distributee may remove any or all sec. 7 additional permissions and
distribute
(whoops, I mean "convey") under bare GPLv3.  Read sec. 7, 2nd para:
	
	"When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your 
       option remove any additional permissions from that copy, 
       or from any part of it."

Andy Wilson
Intel open source