For Approval: GPLv3
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 09:32:48 UTC 2007
On 8/31/07, Richard Fontana <fontana at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > Chris Travers wrote:
> >> In other words, downstream users get their license from *me* for my
> >> code, not from other GPL licensors. CHanging what you can do with *my*
> >> code is not allowed.
> > Except it is allowed, in section 7. Section 7 is not a mistake; it
> > means exactly what it says. This is an exception to the broad
> > "Sublicensing is not allowed"
> >> However, at least the language is contradictory and confusing.
> > There is a minor contradiction in wording, but it doesn't change the
> > legal effect.
> I don't think there is any contradiction in wording.
My, what a surprise.
> I think the source
> of some of the confusion here is that Chris (and perhaps some others in
> this discussion) seem to be giving "sublicense" a nonstandard
> definition. If A, a copyright holder, conveys to B under the GPL +
Full stop right here. A, a copyright holder, "conveys" to B under BSDL
or some other non-GPL license. A, a copyright holder, just can't
become a party to licensing relationship (with C or whomever) under
GPL (plus whatever) terms. The terms A set is BSDL or some other
non-GPL license, and nothing else.
> additional permission, and B conveys to C without modification but
> removes the additional permission (which, it may be noted, is authorized
> by the terms of GPLv3), B is not "sublicensing" to C, because no rights
> to the code are coming from B; they continue to pass directly from A.
but under BSDL and not GPL, oh paragon of legal intelligence.
More information about the License-discuss