Re: Final text of GPL v3 (original) (raw)

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:09:44 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

In message <[🔎] 20070703015224.4614e0f0.frx@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco Poli frx@firenze.linux.it writes

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first discussed.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly > or explicitly forbid retro-activeness. Without this date, there's a > good chance the clause would be declared legally invalid.

I cannot understand how it could be retroactive.

Since the GNU GPL v3 has been released on 29 June 2007, no work has been licensed under its terms prior to 29 June 2007, and hence no provision can be retroactive. A company which entered in a discriminatory agreement prior to 28 March 2007, will find out that now is not allowed to distribute GPLv3ed works. What's retroactive about this?

It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember, but it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 is retroactive to the extent that a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".

But "v2 or later" stuff is still available under the terms of v2, so you can easily escape from undesired restrictions included in v3... Again, I cannot see how a clause in v3 can be retroactive. :-?

[...]

If a company entered prior to 1989 into a weird agreement forbidding the distribution of source code, would we say that GPL sections that mandate availability of source are retroactive?

In that case, they simply wouldn't be able to distribute GPL software, because they wouldn't be able to comply with the licence.

I fail to see any difference with the "28 March 2007" clause, even without the date limit...

-- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment:<pgpEwOWWiX5wS.pgp>
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: