For Approval: GPLv3

[Matthew Flaschen]

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
flags".

  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.

> 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
protection.

> 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
> question.

By serious questions, you seem to mean vague misgivings.

> Therefore my current position is that this license sucks so badly that
even
> 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".

Matt Flaschen