[License-review] For Approval: GPL-3+-with-whonix-additional-terms - GPLv3 with improved, legal protections as per GNU GPL version 3 section 7

[Patrick Schleizer]

Bruce Perens:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:50 PM Patrick Schleizer <adrelanos at riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
>> No legal review.
>>
>
> Patrick,
>
> I don't immediately see any non-compliance with the OSD. However, there is
> another good reason why I feel the license should be rejected.
>
> I submit that you place developers in danger by promoting a license
without
> legal review, since they have no idea of what its actual effect might
be in
> court, and this is thus what we have generally referred to with the
> purposefully deprecatory declaration "Crayon License". That you are making
> a mashup of what is presumably the work of lawyers isn't really
sufficient.
>
> Foregoing the legal review was excusable long ago, indeed the OSD had no
> legal review because no lawyer would help us. Today we have folks like
Kyle
> and Van on this list who have given of their time and are properly
admitted
> to the Bar. I thus suggest that you actually get a lawyer volunteer to
help
> you, and resubmit after that.

I'll ask.

Linking to the other thread which was opened on license-discuss related
to that discussion. [1]

Did I create my own license at all?

Quote GPLv3:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
> add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders
of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

- A) Did I create my own license at all, or
- B) did I only supplement the GPLv3 with terms as GPLv3 allows anyhow?

Quote GPLv3:

>     a) [...]> [...]>     f) [...]
>
>   All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
> restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.  If the Program as you
> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
> governed by this License along with a term that is a further
> restriction, you may remove that term.  [...]

As I understand, if one added a non-permissive additional term, it could
be removed by the licensee. So as long as the text of the GPLv3 is
unmodified (as it is), one can't add anything that would make the
license nonfree.

Isn't this therefore a simplified case?

Looks like FSF foresaw with GPLv3 the need for options and certain
non-permissive additional term and dedicated a huge clause 7 "Additional
Terms" to it. It would be nice to have an approved license that makes
good use of GPLv3 clause 7.

Kind regards,
Patrick

[1]
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/020289.html