[License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
rfontana at redhat.com
Wed Dec 19 05:40:59 UTC 2012
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:17:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent
> (FWIW): http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html
> A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which
> the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only
> if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b.
> Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a
> violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b
> list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports
> to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may
> remove that requirement.
> The literal wording of 7b is exactly as quoted above.
This 7b refers to the 7b of GPLv3 Discussion Draft 2, which contained
the whole 'additional requirements' portion of section 7. In later
drafts of GPLv3, and in the final version, there were no subsections
of section 7, and 7b is one of the enumerated list of allowable
More information about the License-discuss