Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 7. License Compatibility. >> Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited kinds of >> additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:
>> d) They may require that the work contain functioning facilities that >> allow users to immediately obtain copies of its Complete Corresponding >> Source Code. > I really miss an option to require licensors not to make my programs > unfree by using this option d) Well, yes. But at least it looks like all GPLv3-covered code will not _automatically_ be non-free because of an unconditional Aferro clause. We might need to be thankful for small mercies ... >> 11. Licensing of Patents. >> >> When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to >> the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work, >> permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all ... > This is really a bit harsh. Especially that automatism. Why not disallow > them to distribute unless they give such a license? I don't think the automatism will hold up in many courts. A third-party prediction that "you are going to do such-and-such" sounds less legally dependable than the good old "you must do such-and-such, or else!". -- Henning Makholm "What the hedgehog sang is not evidence." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
