For Approval: GPLv3

[Chris Travers]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>   
>> However, in the GPLv2, you had a license whose basic contractual
>> relationship was clearly based in established copyright law.  Subsequent
>> Supreme Court rulings may have changed the scope of the license, but it is
>> pretty hard to argue that it isn't based in the law.
>>     
>
> GPLv3 is still clearly based on copyright law.  If it wasn't, it would
> have no bearing on the exercise of copyright rights.  That would mean it
> wouldn't be able to grant you the right to copy, modify, distribute, etc.
>   

If you reread, I am not questioning that.  I am asking about contract 
procedures and whether this is moving in problematic directions there.

>> My argument against the GPLv3 however is basically that it creates what are
>> probably unprecidented procedures in contracts for third parties to affect
>> the form and/or substance of those contracts.
>>     
>
> Who are you considering a third party?
>   

First party = Licensor.
Second party = Licensee in this specific contractual relationship
Third party = Anyone else.

In this case, the distributor while also a licensee is a third party to 
the contract between the original licensor and the recipient of the 
software.

Ok, let us make this simple.  If I distribute my code to Joe and he 
distributes to Jim, we have the following contracts under the GPL:

1:  Joe and I:
First party: Me.
Second party:  Joe
This may approach that of a bare license depending on what Joe does with 
the code.  Or it may be a bilateral contract with obligations placed on Joe.

2:  Jim and I:
First party:  Me
Second party:  Jim
Joe is a third party.

What part of this is so hard to understand?  My concern is that allowing 
Joe to alter the form of the contract (in terms of consideration stated 
in the contract, even if it is in specific, enumerated ways) in case 2 
between the offer and acceptance phases of the contract makes the 
contract suspect.

Now, you have been on record saying that this is only a matter of form 
and that removal of additional permissions under the GPL3 does not 
actually remove the permissions (only mention of them in the license).  
However, I don't believe that this is correct.  Otherwise, the MS-PL 
would be compatible as long as appropriate legal notices were in place 
since the actual *license grant* could not be changed absent sublicensing.

Interestingly, my reading of the x.org license is that it also prevents 
sublicensing by:
1)  Tying the license grant itself (and not a mere notice) to the code 
and documentation, and
2)  Removing mention of sublicensing rights from the list of granted 
permissions, and
3)  Ensuring automatic licensing of downstream recipients.

Furthermore, at least one BSDL variant I have come across has adopted 
this wording, and so I am not sure that all BSDL variants allow 
sublicensing.  In these cases I am not sure that anyone *can* really 
remove the permissions from the code if it is in a GPL3 distribution.

IANAL, etc.

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/20070901/31d6dd4f/attachment.vcf>