For Approval: GPLv3
chris at metatrontech.com
Fri Aug 31 18:47:24 UTC 2007
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>> The idea that a distributor could have some sort of editorial control
> over the rights
>> granted in a contract that he/she is not a party to raises all manner of
>> red flags.
> Why? If the copyright holder allows the distributor this "editorial
> control" (I think this is a poor choice of words), what's the problem?
> I'm looking for something a little more precise than "all manner of red
> I personally would hope that the removal of additional
>> permissions would be interpreted as to require the direction of any
>> copyright holder over any portion of the affected code.
> As you know, that's contrary to the express wording.
Yes, unfortunately, the express wording seems to my mind to be at odds
with any normal contractual relationship....
>> As for the complaint that "anyone could make a trivial change to remove
>> the permission," the question becomes whether that change is worthy of
>> copyright protection itself.
> It is possible to make a relatively quick change that provides copyright
Sure, and that creates a new contractual relationship governed by the
GPL3. This would be acceptable to my mind.
>> In short one would not have the serious questions as to whether this
> is so far outside what is normally
>> considered to be a valid contract as to bring the whole license into
> By serious questions, you seem to mean vague misgivings.
Ok, I have asked two questions:
1) Who are the parties to the contract?
2) What rights does the contract grant?
I have gotten "filter theories" from some on this list who suggest that
the rights are granted through a filter of a third party and thus the
third party is in control of the rights grant even if he/she is not a
party to the contract. This seems to my mind very suspect.
This "filter theory" constitutes a serious question. My serious
question is this: Does removing permissions invalidate the contract
because the consideration offered and accepted are different?
>> Therefore my current position is that this license sucks so badly that
>> if dependencies move, I do not intend to upgrade the licenses on any software projects I am involved in.
> You're entitled to your choice. But I have to ask that you keep it to
> yourself, or provide some real evidence that there's a problem, not just
> "all manner of red flags", "serious questions", and "pretty sketchy".
Part of the problem is that the hypothetical examples I have given have
resulted in very different outcomes.
I give a copy of Chris's Super Text Editor exclusively to Joe as GPL3
plus, say, the right to make derivative works under any license. Note
that sublicensing is prohibited.
Joe, who makes his own text editor, doesn't like my additional
permission and removes it prior to distributing. Joe makes no other
changes to the program.
We all agree that the recipient of Chris's Super Text Editor is my
licensee, not Joe's. Right?
However, there seem to be strong differences in interpretation as to
what that licensee actually got in the license. Some here say that the
recipient has the right to make derivative works under any license.
Others say that he doesn't. How is this not a red flag?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss