* Steve Langasek: >> 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. > > <snort> > > WTF, seriously?
Yeah, totally my reaction as well. > Reading this makes me want to go write some new code, license it > under the GPLv3 with some random and arbitrary prohibition, and > watch someone at the FSF try to argue that the additional > restriction has no legal force. The "GPL version 2 or later" case is even more interesting. 8-) >> If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, >> and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone >> to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a >> publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, >> then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so >> available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the >> patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner >> consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent >> license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have >> actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the >> covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work >> in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that >> country that you have reason to believe are valid. > > Here I'm confused again. What does making the source code available have to > do with patents? Isn't it the case that the license already requires source > code availability? Not to the general public, no. > How does making the source code available help the patent problem? If you the license requires to publish the source code, other provisions in the license apply. > What does (2) really mean? How can one "arrange to deprive > [oneself] of the benefit of the patent license" -- by goading the > licensor into suing you? :) This is quite bizarre. It might mean that you could implement a workaround for the patent, or distribute it in a jurisdiction where the patent does not apply or something like that. What does the rationale say about this? >> 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. > >> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have >> permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed >> under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single >> combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this >> License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, >> but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, >> section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the >> combination as such. > > Hmm, so maybe when I license my software with an extra restriction, this is > what I'll restrict. ;) But version 3 doesn't allow this, does it? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
