GPLv3's secretive Additional Terms
chris at metatrontech.com
Sun Apr 25 23:58:07 UTC 2010
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
> Chris, I don't believe this language is GPLv3 compliant because of your
> restriction requiring verbatim reproduction of your permission. Section 7 says
> 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.
> which contradicts your restriction. Call me a literalist, but I think
> "remove any additional permissions" means a downstream recipient may /remove/
> permissions, not /add/ new restrictions which have the effect of countering
> additional permissions in underlying code. That way lies madness.
Reading the GPL v3 in that way though makes it incompatible with a
plain reading of any BSD-style license. Or is that my imagination?
More information about the License-discuss