For Approval: GPLv3

[Chris Travers]

On 9/1/07, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I imagine, taking the GPL2 plus OpenSSL case, if someone licences their
> original work with additional permission that it may be linked with
> OpenSSL, Someone receiving that can link it with code having only the
> core GPL permissions, resulting in work that lacks the OpenSSL
> permission.  They must drop the additional permission in deriving the
> composite licence, otherwise the composite would not be distributable.



Here is the problem though:

1:  If I allow GPL3 + linking exception to OpenSSL, then I am offering a set
of permissions for use of my work, am I correct?

2:  I am also offering a contract for distribution of my own work as part of
a derivative work, am I also correct (contract because now there is an
obligation on the one who prepares the derivative work)?

3:  The GPL also states that this is between myself and anyone who receives
the software, and that sublicensing is not allowed.  Am I also correct?   In
this case, it means nobody else can create a license on my behalf telling
people what they can do with the software unless I give them additional
permissions.

4:  So what does it mean to remove permissions?  What sort of legal
relationships are going on here?  Is this an exception to the prohibition on
sublicensing and thus a contract between the distributor and those
downstream?

In short, who are the parties to the contract?  What permissions does the
contract grant after a third party has tampered with it?

BTW, I have asked everyone I can and have not gotten a difinitive legal
explenation.  When I asked Eben Moglen, he said tht other licenses had to
allow for distribution under the exact terms and restrictions as the GPL,
and suggested that in the case of BSDL, this would be a sublicense
arrangement (where the person who converts, essentially offers a new license
with the permission of the copyright holder and is a party to that
license).  When pressed about how this would work for linking exceptions,
however, the conversation abruptly terminated. :-(

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers




--
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070901/9f9a755a/attachment.html>