Personal tools
You are here: Home Rationale for 2nd discussion draft, LaTeX
Document Actions

Rationale for 2nd discussion draft, LaTeX

Click here to get the file

Size 78.0 kB - File type text/x-tex

File contents



\title{GNU General Public License}


\huge{GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Rationale}


 This document states the rationale for the changes in the second
 discussion draft of GPLv3.  We present the changes themselves in the
 form of markup, with \sout{strikeout} indicating text we have removed
 from the draft and \textbf{bold} indicating text we have
 added. Footnotes state the reasons for specific changes.  Several of
 these reasons refer to opinions we are releasing with the second
 discussion draft.

We refer to the first and second discussion drafts of GPLv3 as
``Draft1'' and ``Draft2,'' respectively.



{\parindent 0in

Discussion Draft \sout{1} \textbf{2} of Version 3, \sout{16
Jan} \textbf{27 July} 2006




 Copyright \copyright\ 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
     51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA \\
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies 
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.}



  The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom
to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software---to make sure the software is free for all its users.  We, the
Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of
our software; it applies also to any other program whose authors commit
to using it.  \sout{(Some Free Software Foundation software is covered
by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.)}\footnote{This
parenthetical reference to the GNU LGPL is unnecessary and is less
relevant now that we have written the new version of the LGPL as a set
of permissive exceptions to the GNU GPL in accord with section 7.}  You
can apply it to your programs, too.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if
you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs\sout{;}\textbf{,} and that you know you can do these

  To protect your rights, we need to make requirements that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
\sout{These restrictions translate to} \textbf{Therefore, you have}
certain responsibilities \sout{for you} if you distribute copies of the
software, or if you modify it.

  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their

  Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the

  For the developers' and \sout{author's} \textbf{authors'} protection,
the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free
software.  \sout{If the software is modified by someone else and passed
on, the GPL ensures that recipients are told that what they have is not
the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect
on the original authors' reputations.} \textbf{For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be associated erroneously with
the original version.}

  \sout{Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that
enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management.}
\textbf{Some computers are designed to deny users access to install or
run modified versions of the software inside them.}  \sout{DRM}
\textbf{This} is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL,
which is to protect users' freedom\sout{;} \textbf{to change the
software.}  \sout{therefore} \textbf{Therefore}, the GPL ensures that
the software it covers will \sout{neither be subject to, nor subject
other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden}
\textbf{not be restricted in this way}.\footnote{DRM becomes nastier
when based on Treacherous Computing and other changes in computer
hardware which deny users the possibility of running modified or
alternate programs. When these measures are applied to GPL-covered
software, the freedom to run the program becomes a sham. In the
statement on DRM in the Preamble we now emphasize this fact rather than
the imposition of laws used to enforce and supplement these technical

  Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
\textbf{States should not allow patents to restrict development and use
of software on general-purpose computers, but in places where they do,
we} \sout{We} wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a
free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making
the program proprietary.  To prevent this, the GPL \sout{makes it clear}
\textbf{assures} that \sout{any patent must be licensed for everyone's
free use or not licensed at all} \textbf{patents cannot be used to
render the program non-free}.\footnote{The patent licensing practices
that section 7 of GPLv2 (corresponding to section 12 of GPLv3) was
designed to prevent are one of several ways in which software patents
threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users from
exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
approach to combatting the danger of patents.}

  \sout{The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.}\footnote{This statement is redundant and therefore
unnecessary. In addition, while the requirements of the GPL specifically
concern copying, distribution, and modification, as these terms are
commonly understood by free software users, the GPL speaks of other
aspects of users' rights, as for example in affirming the right to run
the unmodified Program.\label{redun}}


\centerline{\sout{GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE}}

MODIFICATION}\footnote{See n.~\ref{redun}.}}


\sout{A ``licensed program'' means any program or other work distributed
under this License.}\footnote{In Draft1 the term ``licensed program''
was defined but never used.} \sout{``The Program'' refers to any such
program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either the
Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
work containing the Program or a portion of it, either modified or
unmodified.}\footnote{Our efforts to internationalize the terminology of
GPLv3 were incomplete in Draft1, as can be seen in the definition of
``work based on the Program,'' which continued to use the United States
copyright law term of art ``derivative work.'' Some have suggested that
the use of ``containing'' in this definition is not clear. We replace
this definition with a generalized definition of ``based on'' that is
neutral with respect to the vocabularies of particular national
copyright law systems.  See Opinion on Denationalization of
Terminology.\label{deriv}} \textbf{In this License, each licensee is
addressed as ``you,'' while ``the Program'' refers to any work of
authorship licensed under this License.}  \sout{Throughout this License,
the term ``modification'' includes, without limitation, translation and
extension.}  \textbf{A ``modified'' work includes, without limitation,
versions in which material has been translated or added.\footnote{We
replace the definition of ``modification'' with a definition of
``modified'' (work), which we then use as the basis for our new
generalized definition of ``based on.''  This in turn provides us with
an alternative to the definitions in GPLv2 and Draft1 that incorporated
the United States copyright law term ``derivative work.''  See Opinion
on Denationalization of Terminology.\\ \indent We regard the
well-established term ``extension'' (of a program), used in the
now-replaced definition of ``modification,'' to be equivalent to adding
material to the program. We note that copyright law, and not arbitrary
file boundaries, defines the extent of the Program.\label{mod}} A work
``based on'' another work means any modified version, formation of which
requires permission under applicable copyright law.}  A ``covered work''
means either the \textbf{unmodified} Program or \sout{any} \textbf{a}
work based on the Program.\footnote{See nn.~\ref{deriv}--\ref{mod} and
Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology. We have generalized the
definition of ``based on'' beyond ``work based on the Program''; note
that a ``work based on the Program'' no longer includes the Program.}
\sout{Each licensee is addressed as ``you''.}

  To ``propagate'' a work means doing anything with it that requires
permission under applicable copyright law, \sout{other than}
\textbf{except} executing it on a computer\textbf{,} or making
\sout{private} modifications \textbf{that you do not share}.\footnote{We
replace the term ``private'' in the definition of ``propagate'' with
wording that describes behavior. ``Private'' has many, often
conflicting, meanings in legal and common usage.} \sout{This}
\textbf{Propagation} includes copying, distribution (with or without
modification), \textbf{making available to the public,}\footnote{The
copyright laws of many countries other than the United States, as well
as certain international copyright treaties, recognize ``making
available to the public'' or ``communication to the public'' as one of
the exclusive rights of copyright holders.  See Opinion on
Denationalization of Terminology.}  \sout{sublicensing,} and in some
countries other activities as well.  \textbf{To ``convey'' a work means
any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive
copies, excluding sublicensing.}\footnote{See Opinion on
Denationalization of Terminology.  In Draft1 we defined ``propagate'' in
order to free the license from dependence on national copyright law
terms of art.  However, Draft1 continued to use the term ``distribute,''
a term that varies in scope in those copyright law systems that
recognize it, while applying the conditions for distribution to all
kinds of propagation that enable other parties to make or receive
copies.  This approach proved confusing, and showed the incompleteness
of our efforts to internationalize the license.  Draft2 now provides a
new definition of ``convey'' and replaces ``distribute'' with ``convey''
throughout its terms and conditions, apart from a few idiomatic
references to software distribution that are not meant to incorporate
the copyright law term of art. \\ \indent Because we now expressly
prohibit sublicensing under section 2 (see n.~\ref{sublic}), we have
also excluded it from the definition of the new term ``convey'' (and
removed it as an illustrative example of propagation).\label{convey}}

  \textbf{A party's ``essential patent claims'' in a work are all patent
claims that the party can give permission to practice, whether already
acquired or to be acquired, that would be infringed by making, using, or
selling the work.}\footnote{As part of our effort to clarify the wording
of the express patent license of Draft1, resulting in the covenant
not to assert patent claims of Draft2, we provided a new definition
of ``essential patent claims'' to specify, more precisely than we did in
Draft1, the set of patent claims that are licensed (or, as we now
formulate it, subject to the covenant not to assert).  Most notably, we
removed the reference to ``reasonably contemplated use,'' which several
members of our discussion committees argued was unclear. We also used
the verbs that, in most countries, define the basic exclusive powers of
patent holders (making, using, and selling the claimed invention). See
Opinion on Covenant Not to Assert Patent Claims. \\ \indent Having
factored out and revised the definition of ``essential patent claims,''
we realized that we could also use it to clarify the patent retaliation
clause of section 2. See Opinion on Patent Retaliation.\label{epc}}

\section{Source Code.}
  The ``source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it.  ``Object code'' means any non-source
version of a work.

\textbf{The ``System Libraries''\footnote{The definition of
Corresponding Source (``Complete Corresponding Source Code'' in Draft1)
is the most complex definition in the license.  In our efforts to make
the definition clearer and easier to understand, we removed the
exception in the final paragraph of section 1 and rewrote it as the
definition of the new term ``System Libraries,'' which we then use in
the first paragraph of the definition of Corresponding
Source.\label{sl}} of an executable work\footnote{The definition of
System Libraries is inapplicable to non-executable object code works;
with this definition, such works have no System Libraries.} include
every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included
as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if
any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the
object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the
subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to
enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or
interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for
which an implementation is available to the public in source code
form.}\footnote{In Draft1, a system component that implemented a
standard interface qualified for the system library exception if the
implementation required ``no patent license not already generally
available for software under this License.'' This wording was read by
many to mean that the system library exception imposed an affirmative
duty to investigate third-party patents, something which we had never
intended.  Our general concern was to ensure that there would be no
obstacle to supporting the implementation in free software; now we have
specified this without explicit reference to patents. The revised
wording in the definition of System Libraries removes the reference to
patents while requiring the interface to have a freely-available
reference implementation.}

The ``\sout{Complete} Corresponding Source \sout{Code}''\footnote{We
made the trivial change of shortening ``Complete Corresponding Source
Code'' to ``Corresponding Source,'' an abbreviation we had already used
in section 6 of Draft1.} for a work in object code form means all the
source code needed to \sout{understand, adapt, modify, compile, link}
\textbf{generate}, install, and \textbf{(for an executable
work)}\footnote{For non-software works covered by the GPL, the concept
of ``running'' of object code will generally be meaningless.} run the
\textbf{object code and to modify the} work,\footnote{In revising this
part of the definition of Corresponding Source, we have responded to
concerns that some of our wording, which we meant to be expansive, and
particularly the verbs ``understand'' and ``adapt,'' was too vague or
open-ended. In defining what source code is included in Corresponding
Source, we now focus on source code that is necessary to generate and
(if applicable) execute the object code form of the work and to develop,
generate and run modified versions.} \sout{excluding} \textbf{except its
System Libraries, and except} general-purpose tools \textbf{or generally
available free programs which are} used \textbf{unmodified} in
performing those activities but which are not part of the work.  For
example, \sout{this} \textbf{Corresponding Source} includes \sout{any}
scripts used to control those activities, \textbf{interface definition
files associated with the program source files,} and \sout{any}
\textbf{the source code for} shared libraries and dynamically linked
subprograms that the work is \textbf{specifically} designed to
require,\footnote{We clarify that the shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that are included in Corresponding Source are those
that the work is ``specifically'' designed to require, making it clearer
that they do not include libraries invoked by the work that can be
readily substituted by other existing implementations.} such as by
\sout{intimate} \textbf{complex} data communication\footnote{We
substitute ``complex'' for ``intimate,'' which some readers found
unclear.} or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of
the work\sout{, and interface definition files associated with the
program source files}.

  \textbf{The} \sout{Complete} Corresponding Source \sout{Code} also
includes any encryption or authorization \sout{codes}
\textbf{keys}\footnote{We replaced the term ``codes'' with ``keys'' to
avoid confusion with source code and object code.} necessary to install
and/or execute \sout{the} \textbf{modified versions from} source code
\sout{of the work, perhaps modified by you,} in the recommended or
principal context of use, such that \sout{its functioning in all
circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by
your modifications} \textbf{they can implement all the same
functionality in the same range of circumstances.}\footnote{We believe
that this wording is clearer than the wording it replaces.} \textbf{(For
instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must
be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs.  If the work
communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified
versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way
such that the service cannot distinguish.)}\footnote{The previous
version of this paragraph was read more broadly than we had intended.
We now provide specific examples to illustrate to readers the kinds of
circumstances in which users must receive keys along with the source
code in order for their ability to modify software to be real rather
than nominal. See Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management.}  \sout{It
also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the
work's output.}\footnote{Our reference to decryption codes generated
much comment, and was misunderstood by many readers. It was intended to
ensure that the program was not limited to production of encrypted data
that the user was unable to read. We eventually concluded that this is
unnecessary; as long as users are truly in a position to install and run
their modified versions of the program, they could if they wish modify
the original program to output the data without encrypting it.  We have
decided, therefore, to remove this sentence from the draft.}
\sout{Notwithstanding this, a code} \textbf{A key} need not be included
in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has
\sout{it} \textbf{the key and can read and copy it, as in privacy
applications where users generate their own keys.  However, the fact
that a key is generated based on the object code of the work or is
present in hardware that limits its use does not alter the requirement
to include it in the Corresponding Source.}\footnote{ The mere fact that
use of the work implies that the user \textit{has} the key may not be
enough to ensure the user's freedom in using it.  The user must also be
able to read and copy the key; thus, its presence in a special register
inside the computer does not satisfy the requirement. In an application
in which the user's personal key is used to protect privacy or limit
distribution of personal data, the user clearly has the ability to read
and copy the key, which therefore is not included in the Corresponding
Source. On the other hand, if a key is generated based on the object
code, or is present in hardware, but the user cannot manipulate that
key, then the key must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source.}

\textbf{The Corresponding Source may include portions which do not
formally state this License as their license, but qualify under section
7 for inclusion in a work under this License.}\footnote{This paragraph
was previously the final paragraph of section 6; it is more
appropriately included in the definition of Corresponding Source.}

  \textbf{The} \sout{Complete} Corresponding Source \sout{Code} need not
include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other
parts of the \sout{Complete} Corresponding Source \sout{Code}.

\sout{As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code
need not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is
normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major
essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating
system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the
executable or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the
subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to
enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or
interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface, the
implementation of which requires no patent license not already generally
available for software under this License.}\footnote{As we point out in
n.~\ref{sl}, we replaced this paragraph with our new definition of
``System Libraries'' in the second paragraph of section 1.}

\section{Basic Permissions.}

  All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met.  This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the \textbf{unmodified}\footnote{We add
``unmodified,'' even though ``the Program'' is defined as the work as it
is received by the licensee, to more clearly distinguish this permission
from the permission in the following paragraph, which is subject to
patent retaliation.} Program.  The output from running it is covered by
this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a
\sout{work based on the Program} \textbf{covered work}.  This License
acknowledges your rights of ``fair use'' or other equivalent, as
provided by copyright law.

This License \sout{gives unlimited}\footnote{Strictly speaking, this
permission, unlike the permission to run the unmodified Program, is not
unlimited, since it may be terminated under the conditions stated in
this paragraph.} \sout{permission} \textbf{permits you} to
\sout{privately modify} \textbf{make} and run \textbf{privately modified
versions of} the Program,\footnote{As we explain further in the Opinion
on Patent Retaliation, we have revised this wording for clarity.}
\textbf{or have others make and run them on your
behalf.}\footnote{Inherent in the right to modify a work is the right to
have another party modify it on one's behalf.  We mention this
explicitly to make clear that one cannot avoid the effects of the patent
retaliation clause by contracting out the development of the modified
version.}  \sout{provided you do not} \textbf{However, this permission
terminates, as to all such versions, if you} bring suit \textbf{against
anyone} for patent infringement \sout{against anyone} \textbf{of any of
your essential patent claims in any such version,} for making,
using\textbf{, selling} or \sout{distributing} \textbf{otherwise
conveying} \sout{their own works} \textbf{a work} based on the Program
\textbf{in compliance with this License}.\footnote{See Opinion on Patent
Retaliation. The changes we have made in this paragraph more precisely
define the permission as well as the kind of lawsuit that activates
termination of the permission.  For example, as noted in n.~\ref{epc},
we make use of the new defined term ``essential patent claims.''}

  Propagation of covered works \textbf{other than conveying} is
permitted without limitation \sout{provided it does not enable parties
other than you to make or receive copies}.  \textbf{Sublicensing is not
allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.}\footnote{The explicit
prohibition of sublicensing ensures that enforcement of the GPL is
always by the copyright holder.  Usually, sublicensing is regarded as a
practical convenience or necessity for the licensee, to avoid having to
negotiate a license with each licensor in a chain of distribution.  The
GPL solves this problem in another way, through its automatic licensing
provision. \label{sublic}} \sout{Propagation which does enable them to
do so} \textbf{Conveying} is permitted \sout{, as ``distribution'',}
under the conditions \sout{of sections 4-6} \textbf{stated}
below.\footnote{To simplify and clarify the text, we make use of the new
defined term ``conveying.'' See n.~\ref{convey} and Opinion on
Denationalization of Terminology.}

\section{\sout{Digital Restrictions Management} \textbf{No Denying
 Users' Rights Through Technical Measures}.\protect\footnote{ In Draft1
only part of this section concerned Digital Restrictions Management, so
the title was misleading. In Draft2 none of the section directly
concerns DRM; parts of it are designed to thwart legal means of stopping
users from changing free software that comes with DRM, but that is an
indirect connection. We have retitled the section to state its direct
focus. Our license must do what it can to resist the effects of
technical measures to deny users' rights to copy, modify, and share
software, and of the laws that prohibit escape from these measures.  See
Opinion on Digital Restrictions Management.}}

\sout{As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share
copyrighted works.  Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light
of this specific declaration of the licensor's intent.}\footnote{These
sentences were intended to guide judicial interpretation of the license
to resolve any ambiguities in favor of protecting users against
technical restrictions on their freedom.  We deleted this sentence as
part of focusing the GPL's requirements on protecting the freedom to
modify DRM-ridden software, rather than at the DRM itself.} Regardless
of any other provision of this License, no permission is given \sout{to
distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy,
nor}\footnote{The clause referring to illegal invasions of users'
privacy was intended to provide developers a weapon, based in copyright,
to combat spyware and malware, in order to supplement enforcement
efforts of public authorities.  The considerable public reaction to this
provision, however, was overwhelmingly negative, and we therefore have
decided to remove it.} for modes of \sout{distribution}
\textbf{conveying} that deny users that run covered works the full
exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.

  No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
\textbf{``}protection\textbf{''} measure \textbf{under section 1201 of
Title 17 of the United States Code.}\sout{: that is to say, distribution
of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data
constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution
and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the
same data.}  \textbf{When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal
power to forbid circumvention of technical measures that include use of
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing the legal rights of
third parties against the work's users.}\footnote{We revised the second
paragraph of section 3 extensively, breaking it up into two sentences.
The first sentence now makes specific reference to the anticircumvention
provisions of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  The second
sentence is more generally directed, but its waiver and disclaimer
respond specifically to the features of the anticircumvention provisions
of the European Union Copyright Directive and its associated
implementing legislation.  Although our general approach in drafting
GPLv3 has been to remove references to particular regimes of copyright
law, and particularly those of the United States, the peculiar features
of the different U.S. and European approaches to anticircumvention, and
the graveness of the danger these laws pose to free software, demanded a
more specialized solution. In particular, the EUCD appears to give
implementers of technical restriction measures the power to waive the
operation of anticircumvention law.  The DMCA is worded differently; we
believe its effects are best resisted by way of a declaration that
covered works are not part of its ``protection'' measures. See Opinion
on Digital Restrictions Management.}

\section{Verbatim Copying.}

 You may copy and \sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} verbatim copies of
the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided
that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all license notices and
notices of the absence of any warranty; \textbf{and} give all
recipients\textbf{,} \sout{of} \textbf{along with} the Program\textbf{,}
a copy of this License \sout{along with the Program;} and \sout{obey any
additional terms present on parts of the Program in accord with}
\textbf{the central list (if any) required by} section 7.  \textbf{The
recipients of these copies will possess all the rights granted by this
License (with any added terms under section 7).}\footnote{The principal
changes in the first paragraph of section 4 concern the possible
presence of additional terms on all or part of the Program.  We removed
wording that was inconsistent with section 7; the job it did is now done
in section 7 itself.  We also added wording that makes clear that the
conveyor must provide the central list of additional terms required by
section 7, and that recipients receive full GPL rights, supplemented by
any additional terms that were placed on the Program.}

  You may charge \sout{a fee} \textbf{any price or no price} for
\sout{the physical act of transferring a copy} \textbf{each copy that
you convey},\footnote{ The original wording of this clause was meant to
make clear that the GPL permits one to charge for the distribution of
software.  Despite our efforts to explain this in the license and in
other documents, there are evidently some who believe that the GPL
allows charging for services but not for selling software, or that the
GPL requires downloads to be gratis.  We referred to charging a ``fee'';
the term ``fee'' is generally used in connection with services.  Our
original wording also referred to ``the physical act of transferring.''
The intention was to distinguish charging for transfers from attempts to
impose licensing fees on all third parties.  ``Physical'' might be read,
however, as suggesting ``distribution in a physical medium only.''  In
our revised wording we use ``price'' in place of ``fee,'' and we remove
the term ``physical.''} and you may \sout{at your option} offer
\textbf{support or} warranty protection for a fee.\footnote{There is no
harm in explicitly pointing out what ought to be obvious: that those who
convey GPL-covered software may offer commercial services for the
support of that software.}

\section{\sout{Distributing} \textbf{Conveying} Modified Source Versions.}

  \sout{Having modified a copy of the Program under the conditions of
section 2, thus forming a work based on the Program, you} \textbf{You}
may copy and \sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} \sout{such modifications
or} \textbf{a} work \textbf{based on the Program, or the modifications
to produce it from the Program,}\footnote{Conveying a patch that is used
to produce a modified version is equivalent to conveying the modified
version itself.} in the form of source code under the terms of section 4
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

\item The modified work must carry prominent notices stating that you
      changed the work and the date of any change.

\item You must license the entire \sout{modified} work, as a whole,
    under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
    This License must apply, unmodified except as permitted by section 7
    below, to the whole of the work\textbf{, and all its parts,
    regardless of how they are packaged}.\footnote{We add to subsection
    5b a simpler restatement of a point that was previously made in a
      more cumbersome way in the text following subsection 5c.
      Distributors may not use artful subdivision of a modified work to
      evade the GPL's copyleft requirement.}  This License
    gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it
    does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received

\item If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must
      include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate
      copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for
      the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may
      \sout{redistribute} \textbf{convey} the modified work under
      \sout{these conditions} \textbf{this License}, and how to view a
      copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of
      other terms in accord with section 7.  \textbf{Specifically,}
      \sout{If} \textbf{if} the interface presents a list of user
      commands or options, such as a menu, a command to display this
      information must be prominent in the list\sout{.}\textbf{;}
      \sout{Otherwise} \textbf{otherwise}, the modified work must
      display this information at startup\sout{---except in the case
      that the Program has such interactive modes and does not display
      this information at startup}.  \textbf{However, if the Program has
      interactive interfaces that do not comply with this subsection,
      your modified work need not make them comply.}\footnote{Responding
      to several public comments, we have rewritten the last sentence of
      subsection 5c to make it clearer. The substance is unchanged.}


\noindent \sout{These requirements apply to the modified work as a
whole.}\footnote{Subsection 5b makes this sentence redundant.} \sout{If}
\textbf{To the extent that} identifiable sections of \sout{that}
\textbf{the modified} work, added by you, are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works
in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you \sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} them as separate
works\textbf{, not specifically} for use \sout{not} in combination with
the Program.\footnote{A separately-conveyed component that is designed
only to be used in combination with and as part of a specific
GPL-covered work ought to be considered part of that work, and not as a
separate work.} \sout{But when you distribute the same sections for use
in combination with covered works, no matter in what form such
combination occurs, the whole of the combination must be licensed under
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to every part of the whole. Your sections may carry
other terms as part of this combination in limited ways, described in
section 7.}\footnote{The paragraph following subsection 5c was
needlessly abstruse, as was made clear to us during the discussion
process.  We have made it shorter and, we think, clearer, removing
wording duplicative of statements made elsewhere (such as in subsection
5b) and limiting use of the term ``combination,'' which troubled many

\sout{Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent
is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.}\footnote{We have deleted this
statement of intent; we consider it unnecessary. It also had the
disadvantage of using terminology specific to U.S. copyright law.}

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in
or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
``aggregate'' if the \textbf{compilation and its resulting} copyright
\sout{resulting from the compilation is} \textbf{are} not used to limit
the \textbf{access or} legal rights of the compilation's users beyond
what the individual works permit. \sout{Mere inclusion}
\textbf{Inclusion} of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this
License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

\section{\textbf{Conveying} Non-Source \sout{Distribution} \textbf{Forms.}}
You may copy and \sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} a covered work in
\sout{Object Code} \textbf{object code} form under the terms of sections
4 and 5, provided that you also \sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} the
machine-readable \sout{Complete} Corresponding Source \sout{Code (herein
the ``Corresponding Source'')} under the terms of this License, in one
of these ways:

\item \sout{Distribute} \textbf{Convey} the \sout{Object Code}
    \textbf{object code} in a physical product (including a physical
    distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source
    \sout{distributed} \textbf{fixed} on a durable physical medium
    customarily used for software interchange\textbf{.}\sout{; or,}
\item \sout{Distribute} \textbf{Convey} the \sout{Object Code}
    \textbf{object code} in a physical product (including a physical
    distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at
    least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or
      customer support for that product model, to give any third
    party\sout{, for a price no more than ten times your cost of
    physically performing source distribution,} a copy of
    the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
    covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily
    used for software interchange\textbf{, for a
    price no more than your reasonable cost of physically
    performing this conveying of source.}\footnote{Responding to
      arguments made in several public comments, we have decided to
      restore the requirement, relaxed in Draft1, that the price of
      the copy of the Corresponding Source be limited to the reasonable
      cost of physically performing source distribution.}\sout{; or,}
\item \textbf{Convey the object code in a physical product
    (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
    offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
      offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to
    access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no
     charge.}]\footnote{We present for consideration and discussion this
      proposed new option for providing Corresponding Source by a
      written offer to make the Corresponding Source available for
      download from a network server. In the past, downloading was not a
      convenient option for most users in most circumstances.  This is
      no longer true in many places where broadband net access is
      common.\\ \indent Moreover, there are now services that will
      download material, store it on a CD or DVD, and mail it to the
      customer for a reasonable price, comparable to the cost of
      occasionally preparing and mailing a source disk.  (For example,
      we know of one business that charges U.S. \$8.52 to burn and ship
      a DVD containing between 2GB and 4.7GB of data from the U.S. to
      any country outside the U.S.) The availability of such services
      suggests that option 6b1 will be no worse than option 6b, even for
      users in countries where access to broadband is uncommon.}

\item \sout{Privately distribute} \textbf{Convey individual copies of}
    the \sout{Object Code} \textbf{object code} with a copy of the
    written offer to provide the Corresponding Source.  This alternative
    is allowed only \sout{for occasional noncommercial distribution}
    \textbf{occasionally and noncommercially}, and only if you received
    the \sout{Object Code} \textbf{object code} with such an offer, in
    accord with \sout{Subsection b above} \textbf{subsection 6b or
      6b1}.\footnote{We have revised the wording of this option for
      clarity.  The subsection is meant to facilitate personal,
      noncommercial sharing of copies between individuals.} \sout{Or,}

\item \sout{Distribute} \textbf{Convey} the \sout{Object Code}
    \textbf{object code} by offering access \sout{to copy it} from a
    designated place, and offer equivalent access to \sout{copy} the
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place
    \textbf{at no extra charge}.\footnote{We now specify what we believe
      was previously implicit: if binaries are offered for download from
      a network server, the Corresponding Source made available through
      the network server in accord with this subsection must be offered
      at no extra charge.}  You need not require recipients
    to copy the Corresponding Source along with the \sout{Object Code}
    \textbf{object code}.

    [If the place to copy the \sout{Object Code} \textbf{object code} is
    a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different
    server that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you
    have explicitly arranged with the operator of that server to keep
    the Corresponding Source available for as long as needed to satisfy
    these requirements, and provided you maintain clear directions next
    to the \sout{Object Code} \textbf{object code} saying where to find
    the Corresponding Source.]

\item \textbf{Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission
    provided you know that, and inform other peers where, the object
      code and Corresponding Source of
    the work are being offered to the general public at no
    charge under subsection 6d.}\footnote{See Opinion on BitTorrent

\sout{Distribution of the} \textbf{The} Corresponding Source
\textbf{conveyed} in accord with this section must be in a format that
is publicly documented, \sout{unencumbered by patents,} \textbf{with an
implementation available to the public in source code
form,}\footnote{Our primary objective here was to ensure that the
distributor use a generally-recognized mechanism for packaging source
code. However, many read the requirement that the distribution format be
``unencumbered by patents'' as creating a duty to investigate
third-party patents.  In Draft2, as with the clause in the system
library exception (now the definition of System Libraries) concerning
standard implementations, we have removed the reference to patents and
instead require the public availability of an implementation in source
code form.} and must require no special password or key for unpacking,
reading or copying.

\sout{The Corresponding Source may include portions which do not
formally state this License as their license, but qualify under section
7 for inclusion in a work under this License.}\footnote{We have moved
this sentence to the definition of Corresponding Source in section 1.}

\textbf{A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is
excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.}\footnote{We made this
change, taking advantage of the definition of System Libraries, to make
explicit what has been implicit: that the object code distribution of a
GPL-covered work does not imply responsibility to distribute any System
Library on which the work depends.}

\section{\sout{License Compatibility} \textbf{Additional
 Terms}.\protect\footnote{ As we explain in the Opinion on Additional
Terms, we have extensively rewritten section 7.  We changed the section
title because license compatibility as it is conventionally understood
is only one of several aspects of the issue of placement of additional
terms on a GPL-covered program.}}

\sout{When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your
 own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give,
 appropriate copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly permit
 all the activities that this License permits, or permit usage or
 relicensing under this License. Your terms may be written separately or
 may be this License plus additional written permission. If you so
 license your own added parts, those parts may be used separately under
 your terms, but the entire work remains under this License. Those who
 copy the work, or works based on it, must preserve your terms just as
 they must preserve this License, as long as any substantial portion of
 the parts they apply to are present.}

\textbf{You may have received the Program,\footnote{In Draft1 section 7
did not directly address the possibility of additional terms being
placed on the entire Program by the original author. See Opinion on
Additional Terms.} or parts of it, under terms that supplement the terms
of this License.  These additional terms may include additional
permissions, as provided in subsection 7a, and additional requirements,
as provided in subsection 7b.  When you convey copies of a covered work,
unless the work also permits use under a previous version of this
License, it must list, in one central place in the source code, the
complete set of additional terms governing all or part of the
work.}\footnote{This is a restatement of the central list requirement,
along with the exception for ``version 2 or later'' works, that was
previously placed at the end of section 7. It recognizes that additional
terms may cover the whole work as well as parts of it.}

\subsection{\textbf{Additional Permissions.}}

  \textbf{Additional permissions make exceptions from one or more of the
requirements of this License.\footnote{We offer version 3 of the GNU
LGPL as a model for the use of additional permissions as exceptions from
requirements of the GPL.}  A license document containing a clause that
permits relicensing or conveying under this License shall be treated as
a list of additional permissions, provided that the license document
makes clear that no requirement in it survives such relicensing or
conveying.}\footnote{ Free software licenses that are nominally
permissive and non-copyleft either are assumed to contain an implied
relicensing clause or expressly permit distribution ``under another
license.''  Some of these licenses, however, fail to make clear whether
all of their requirements are extinguished by the relicensing clause, or
whether some of the requirements continue to burden downstream users of
code that is nominally distributed under the terms of some other
license.\\ \indent We address this problem in subsection 7a. A formal
license containing a relicensing clause is automatically compatible with
GPLv3, as though that formal license contained no additional
requirements, but only if that license makes clear that the relicensing
clause extinguishes all additional requirements in it.  Otherwise, the
relicensing clause is ignored for purposes of analyzing compatibility
with GPLv3; each additional requirement must be considered to determine
whether it falls within the list of allowed additional requirements
given in subsection 7b.}

  \textbf{Any additional permissions that are applicable to the entire
Program are treated as though they were included in this License, as
exceptions to its conditions, to the extent that they are valid under
applicable law.  If additional permissions apply only to part of the
Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but
the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to
the additional terms.}\footnote{The second sentence of this paragraph
restates more clearly what was stated in the first paragraph of Draft1
section 7.  The first sentence of this paragraph is new; it describes
the effect of an additional permission that applies to the whole work.}

 \sout{Aside from additional permissions, your terms may add limited
kinds of additional requirements on your added parts, as follows:}

\subsection{\textbf{Additional Requirements.}}

 \textbf{Additional requirements are terms that further constrain use,
modification or propagation of covered works.  This License affects only
the procedure for enforcing additional requirements, and does not assert
that they can be successfully enforced by the copyright
holder.\footnote{We require enforcement of additional requirements to be
by the procedure given in section 8.} Only these kinds of additional
requirements are allowed by this License:}\footnote{We have rewritten
the list of allowed additional requirements for clarity, and we have
added a catchall requirement category.}

\item \sout{a) They may} \textbf{terms that} require \sout{the}
       preservation of \sout{certain copyright notices, other}
       \textbf{specified reasonable} legal notices\sout{, and/or}
       \textbf{or} author attributions\sout{,}\textbf{; or}

\item \sout{and may} \textbf{terms that} require that the origin of the
\sout{parts} \textbf{material} they cover not be misrepresented,
\sout{and/or} \textbf{or} that \sout{altered} \textbf{modified} versions
of \sout{them} \textbf{that material} be marked \sout{in the source
code, or marked there} in specific reasonable ways\sout{,} as different
from the original version\sout{.}\textbf{; or}

\item \sout{b) They may state a disclaimer of} warranty \sout{and}
      \textbf{or} liability \textbf{disclaimers} \sout{in terms
      different} \textbf{that differ} from \sout{those used} \textbf{the
      disclaimers} in this License\sout{.}\textbf{; or}

\item \sout{c) They may} \textbf{terms that} prohibit or limit the use
      for publicity purposes of
specified names of \sout{contributors} \textbf{licensors or
      authors},\footnote{``Contributor'' is a term defined in several
      other free software licenses, but not used in our licenses.  We
      replace it here with the equivalent terms of art ``licensor'' and
      ``author.''} \sout{and they may} \textbf{or that} require that
specified \textbf{trade names,} trademarks\textbf{, or service marks
      not} be used for publicity purposes \textbf{without express
      permission, other than} \sout{only} in \sout{the} ways
that are fair use under \textbf{applicable} trademark law\textbf{;}
      \sout{except with express permission.} \textbf{or}

\item \sout{d) They may} \textbf{terms that} require\textbf{,}
      \sout{that the work contain functioning facilities that
allow} \textbf{if a modified version of the material they cover is a
      work intended to interact with users through a computer network,
      that those} users \textbf{be able} to \sout{immediately} obtain
      copies of \sout{its} \textbf{the} \sout{Complete} Corresponding
      Source \sout{Code.} \textbf{of the work through the same network
      session;\footnote{We have addressed concerns regarding the phrase
      ``functioning facilities'' and the potential applicability of the
      wording of subsection 7d of Draft1 to modified code not intended
      for public network use.} or}

\item \sout{e) They may impose software patent retaliation, which means}
\textbf{terms that wholly or partially terminate, or allow termination of,}
for use of \sout{your added parts terminates or may be terminated, wholly or
partially, under stated conditions,} \textbf{the material they cover,}
for \sout{users closely related to any party that has filed}
\textbf{a user who files} a software patent lawsuit 
(\sout{i.e.}\textbf{that is}, a lawsuit alleging
that some software infringes a patent)\sout{.} 
\textbf{not filed in retaliation or defense against the earlier filing
      of another software patent lawsuit, or in which the allegedly
      infringing software includes some of the covered material,
      possibly in combination with other software; or}
\sout{The conditions must limit
retaliation to a subset of these two cases: 1. Lawsuits that lack the
justification of retaliating against other software patent lawsuits that
lack such justification. 2. Lawsuits that target part of this work, or
other code that was elsewhere released together with the parts you
added, the whole being under the terms used here for those
      parts.}\footnote{The wording of subsection 7e of Draft1,
      concerning compatible patent retaliation clauses, was particularly
      difficult for readers to understand.  We have entirely rewritten
      it, without changing any of its substance.}
\item \textbf{terms that are precisely equivalent in type and extent to
      a requirement expressly stated in this License, or that deny
      permission for activities that are clearly not permitted,
      expressly or otherwise, by this License.}\footnote{We add this
      catchall category for other requirements that do not fall neatly
      into one of the previously listed categories but which, in a
      sense, are not ``additional'' because the GPL clearly makes the
      same requirement, or clearly does not permit what the requirement
      prohibits. This category might include certain requirements,
      worded differently from but exactly equivalent to those of the
      GPL, contained in the terms of other license documents.}

\sout{No other additional conditions are permitted in your terms;
therefore, no other conditions can be present on any work that uses this
License. This License does not attempt to enforce your terms, or assert
that they are valid or enforceable by you; it simply does not prohibit
you from employing them.}

\textbf{All other additional requirements, including attorney's fees
provisions, choice of law, forum, and venue clauses, arbitration
clauses, mandatory contractual acceptance clauses, requirements
regarding changes to the name of the work, and terms that require that
conveyed copies be governed by a license other than this License, are
prohibited.}\footnote{We now provide a non-exhaustive list of examples
of other kinds of conditions that are disallowed additional requirements
under the GPL.  Questions commonly arise about whether certain of these
terms, such as attorney's fees provisions and choice of law clauses, are
compatible with the GPL.  Some such provisions are typically found in
license documents drafted from a contract-oriented perspective; to the
drafters or users of these licenses it may not be obvious why we
consider them to be requirements in the context of a pure copyright

\subsection{\textbf{Terms Added or Removed By You.}}

\sout{When others modify the work, if they modify your parts of it, they
may release such parts of their versions under this License without
additional permissions, by including notice to that effect, or by
deleting the notice that gives specific permissions in addition to this
License. Then any broader permissions granted by your terms which are
not granted by this License will not apply to their modifications, or to
the modified versions of your parts resulting from their
modifications. However, the specific requirements of your terms will
still apply to whatever was derived from your added parts.}

\textbf{When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it.\footnote{We no longer formally require removal of an additional
permission to be by one who modifies.}  Some additional permissions
require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the
work.}\footnote{See, for example, subsection 2b of LGPLv3.}

\textbf{Additional requirements are allowed only as stated in subsection
7b.  If the Program as you received it purports to impose any other
additional requirement, you may remove that
requirement.}\footnote{Unlike additional permissions, additional
requirements that are allowed under subsection 7b may not be
removed. The revised section 7 makes clear that this condition does not
apply to any other additional requirements, however, which are removable
just like additional permissions.  Here we are particularly concerned
about the practice of program authors who purport to license their works
under the GPL with an additional requirement that contradicts the terms
of the GPL, such as a prohibition on commercial use.  Such terms can
make the program non-free, and thus contradict the basic purpose of the
GNU GPL; but even when the conditions are not fundamentally unethical,
adding them in this way invariably makes the rights and obligations of
licensees uncertain.}

\textbf{You may place additional permissions, or additional requirements
as allowed by subsection 7b, on material, added by you to a covered
work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
Adding requirements not allowed by subsection 7b is a violation of this
License that may lead to termination of your rights under section 8.}

\textbf{If you add terms to a covered work in accordance with this
section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of
the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.}\footnote{The version of section 7
in Draft1 required additional terms to be in writing. The final
paragraph of section 7 in Draft2 states in further detail how the
written notice of applicable additional terms must be provided.}

\sout{Unless the work also permits distribution under a previous version
of this License, all the other terms included in the work under this
section must be listed, together, in a central list in the work.}


  You may not propagate\sout{,} \textbf{or} modify \sout{or
sublicense}\footnote{Because sublicensing is now expressly prohibited
under section 2, section 8 need not refer to it.} the Program except as
expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt otherwise to
propagate\sout{,} \textbf{or} modify \sout{or sublicense} the Program is
void\sout{, and any copyright holder may terminate your rights under
this License at any time after having notified you of the violation by
any reasonable means within 60 days of any occurrence}.  \textbf{If you
violate this License, any copyright holder may put you on notice by
notifying you of the violation, by any reasonable means, provided 60
days have not elapsed since the last violation.  Having put you on
notice, the copyright holder may then terminate your license at any
time.}\footnote{ We have rephrased the non-automatic termination
procedure to make it easier to understand.}  However, parties who have
received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have
their licenses terminated so long as they remain in full compliance.

\section{\sout{Not a Contract} \textbf{Acceptance Not Required for
 Having Copies.}\protect\footnote{We received a number of forceful
 objections to the title of section 9 of Draft1, principally from
 lawyers.  This surprised us, since our section titles were not intended
 to have legal significance, and, moreover, the content of section 9 was
 essentially unchanged from section 5 of GPLv2.  We have changed the
 title of section 9 to one that summarizes the first sentence of the
 section.\\ \indent Section 9 means what it says: mere receipt or
 execution of code neither requires nor signifies contractual acceptance
 under the GPL.  Speaking more broadly, we have intentionally structured
 our license as a unilateral grant of copyright permissions, the basic
 operation of which exists outside of any law of contract.  Whether and
 when a contractual relationship is formed between licensor and licensee
 under local law do not necessarily matter to the working of the

  You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
\textbf{or run}\footnote{The GPL makes no condition on execution of the
Program, as section 2 affirms, just as it makes no condition on receipt
of the Program.} a copy of the Program.  \textbf{Ancillary propagation
of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using
peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require
acceptance.}\footnote{See Opinion on BitTorrent Propagation.} However,
nothing else grants you permission to propagate or modify the Program or
any covered works.  These actions infringe copyright if you do not
accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating the Program
(or any covered work), you indicate your acceptance of this License to
do so, and all its terms and conditions.

\section{Automatic Licensing of Downstream Users.}

  Each time you \sout{redistribute} \textbf{convey} a covered work, the
recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors,
to \sout{propagate and} \textbf{run,} modify \textbf{and propagate} that
work, subject to this License, including any additional terms introduced
through section 7.  You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights thus granted or affirmed, except
\sout{(when modifying the work)} in the limited ways permitted by
section 7.  \textbf{Therefore, you may not impose a license fee,
royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this
License.}\protect\footnote{Draft1 removed the words ``at no charge''
from what is now subsection 5b, the core copyleft provision, for reasons
related to our current changes to the second paragraph of section 4: it
had contributed to a misconception that the GPL did not permit charging
for distribution of copies.  The purpose of the ``at no charge'' wording
was to prevent attempts to collect royalties from third parties.  The
removal of these words created the danger that the imposition of
licensing fees would no longer be seen as a license violation. \\
\indent We therefore have added a new explicit prohibition on imposition
of licensing fees or royalties in section 10.  This section is an
appropriate place for such a clause, since it is a specific consequence
of the general requirement that no further restrictions be imposed on
downstream recipients of GPL-covered code.}  You are not responsible for
enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

\textbf{If propagation results from a transaction transferring control
of an organization, each party to that transaction who receives a copy
of the work also receives a license and a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the party's predecessor in
interest.}\footnote{The parties in mergers and acquisitions of
businesses place a premium on reduction of uncertainty regarding the
rights and liabilities being transferred.  This is, of course, true of
transactions involving businesses with assets that include GPL-covered
software.  There appears to be particular concern about whether and when
such transactions activate the distribution-related requirements of the
GPL for software that previously has been used and modified internally.
With such concerns in mind, some members of our discussion committees
have proposed that we allow assignment of the GPL, while others have
suggested complex changes to the definition of propagation or
licensee.\\ \indent For our part, we agree entirely that the GPL should
not create obstacles in corporate control transactions, but we do have
concerns about the clever structuring of transactions specifically to
avoid the consequences of the GPL. As one example, a business that uses
certain GPL-covered software internally may seek to sell a division but
keep control of a trade secret embodied in its improvements to that
software. In such a case, the business might attempt to keep the source
code for itself and give only the binary to the buyer.  This, we
believe, should not be allowed.\\ \indent In Draft2 we have addressed
these issues not by altering definitions of terms or allowing
assignment, both of which we believe might have undesirable
consequences, but by treating control transactions as a special case to
be handled by automatic licensing.  Under the new second paragraph of
section 10, a party to a control transaction who receives any part or
form of a GPL-covered work automatically receives, in addition to all
upstream licenses in the chain of propagation, a license and a right to
possession of the Corresponding Source from the predecessor in

\section{\sout{Licensing of} Patents.\protect\footnote{We removed the
reference to ``licensing'' in the title of this section. Section 11 is
no longer concerned solely with granting of and distribution under
patent licenses.  We have replaced the express patent license grant with
a covenant not to assert patent claims, and the new paragraph on
reservation of implied rights is not limited to implied patent

\sout{When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent
license}\footnote{The patent license grant of Draft1 is replaced in
Draft2 with a covenant not to assert patent claims. See n.~\ref{cov} and
Opinion on Covenant Not to Assert Patent Claims.} \sout{to the
recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work,
permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all activities
allowed or contemplated by this License, such as installing, running and
distributing versions of the work, and using their output.}\footnote{In
the corresponding wording of the covenant not to assert we refer simply
to ``your exercise of rights under this License.''} \sout{This patent
license is nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide,}\footnote{These
qualifications are unnecessary when the formalism of a patent license is
replaced with a covenant, as it is here, or with a warranty.} \sout{and
covers all patent claims you control or have the right to sublicense, at
the time you distribute the covered work or in the future, that would be
infringed or violated by the covered work or any reasonably contemplated
use of the covered work.}\footnote{The last part of the last sentence of
the express patent license is replaced, in the covenant not to assert,
by the reference to essential patent claims, defined in section 0.}

\textbf{You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and
conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under this
License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting party will
not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's essential
patent claims in the material that the party conveyed, against you,
arising from your exercise of rights under this License.  If you convey
a covered work, you similarly covenant to all recipients, including
recipients of works based on the covered work, not to assert any of your
essential patent claims in the covered work.}\footnote{As we explain
further in the Opinion on Covenant Not to Assert Patents, we have
redrafted the express patent license of Draft1 as a covenant not to
assert patent claims.  We believe that the new wording, which makes use
of the defined terms ``essential patent claims'' and ``based on,'' is
simpler and clearer than the wording of the patent license, and is
responsive to the extensive commentary on the express patent license
that we received from the public and the discussion committees.\\
\indent In Draft1, no express patent license was given by the author of
the Program.  Under the covenant of Draft2, however, the original
licensor undertakes to make the same covenant as any other subsequent
conveyor.  It is primarily for this reason that the covenant is
structured in two parts (specifying the rights of the licensee as
covenantee, and the obligations of the licensee as

If you \sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} a covered work\textbf{,}
knowingly relying on a \textbf{non-sublicensable} patent license
\textbf{that is not generally available to all},\footnote{If patent
licenses are sublicensable or generally available to all, they do not
give rise to the problem of shifting risk of patent infringement
liability downstream, which this paragraph is intended to target.} you
must \textbf{either (1)} act to shield downstream users against the
possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects
you\textbf{, or (2) ensure that anyone can copy the Corresponding Source
of the covered work, free of charge and under the terms of this License,
through a publicly-available network server or other readily accessible
means}.\footnote{ After gathering opinion on the second paragraph of
section 11 during the discussion process, we decided to offer a specific
form of shielding that would satisfy the objectives of the paragraph.  A
distributor of a covered work under benefit of a patent license can
ensure that the Corresponding Source is made publicly available, free of
charge, for all to access and copy, such as by arranging for the
Corresponding Source to be available on a public network server.  We
keep the more general shielding requirement as an option because we do
not wish to insist upon public distribution of source code. Distributors
complying with this section may prefer to provide other means of
shielding their downstream recipients.}

\textbf{Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or
limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent
law.}\footnote{Without this provision, it might be argued that any
implied patent licenses or other patent infringement defenses otherwise
available by operation of law are extinguished by, for example, the
express covenant not to assert.  We consider it important to preserve
these rights and defenses for users to the extent possible.  Moreover,
the availability of implied licenses or similar rights may be necessary
in order for certain kinds of shielding under the second paragraph to be

\section{\sout{Liberty or Death for the Program} \textbf{No Surrender 
of Others' Freedom.}\protect\footnote{We have replaced the title of this
 section with one that more closely reflects its purpose and effect,
 which is to prevent distribution that operates to give recipients less
 than the full set of freedoms that the GPL promises them.  The previous
 title was not entirely accurate, in that the program is not necessarily
 ``dead'' if an attempt to distribute by one party under a particular
 set of circumstances activates the section.  The program may remain
 free for other users facing other circumstances.}}

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
\sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} the Program, or other covered work, so
as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any
other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
\sout{distribute} \textbf{convey} it at all. For example, if \textbf{you
accept} a patent license \sout{would not permit} \textbf{that prohibits}
royalty-free \sout{redistribution} \textbf{conveying} by \sout{all}
those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the
only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
entirely from \sout{distribution} \textbf{conveying the
Program}.\footnote{The example given here is reworded slightly to make
it clearer that it is acceptance of the patent license (a
self-imposition of conditions) that activates the section, and that the
effective terms of the patent license must actually prohibit exercise of
GPL freedoms by downstream recipients.  A distributor who accepts a
patent license that does not activate this section may nonetheless be
required to comply with the second paragraph of section 11.}

\sout{It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe
any patents or other exclusive rights or to contest their legal
validity.  The sole purpose of this section is to protect the integrity
of the free software distribution system. Many people have made generous
contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
choice.}\footnote{This paragraph provides a statement of purpose but
does not contain a substantive term or condition.  Our experience with
GPLv2 convinces us that it is no longer necessary, if indeed it ever

\section{Geographical Limitations.}

  If the \sout{distribution} \textbf{conveying} and/or use of the
Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by
copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the
Program under this License may add an explicit geographical
\sout{distribution} limitation \textbf{on conveying,} excluding those
countries, so that \sout{distribution} \textbf{conveying} is permitted
only in or among countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this
License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this

\section{Revised Versions of this License.}

  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the GNU General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
specifies that a certain numbered version of this License ``or any later
version'' applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not
specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version
ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

\section{Requesting Exceptions.\protect\footnote{We have bracketed
section 15 for possible removal from the final version of GPLv3.  Though
this section has value in teaching users that authors may grant
permissive exceptions to the strong copyleft of the GPL, we now provide
a framework for such exceptions within the license, in section 7.
Section 15 is, in a sense, a provision that exists outside the terms of
the GPL (it is neither a permission nor a requirement).  It may be more
appropriate to transfer it to a FAQ or other educational document.}}

  If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs \sout{whose distribution conditions are different}
\textbf{under other licenses}, write to the author to ask for
permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make
exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals of
preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.]

\centerline{NO WARRANTY}
\section{\textbf{Disclaimer of Warranty.}\protect\footnote{We added a
 descriptive title for this section.}}

  There is no warranty for the Program, to the extent permitted by
applicable law.  Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright
holders and/or other parties provide the Program ``as is'' without
warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not
limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose.  The entire risk as to the quality and performance
of the Program is with you.  Should the Program prove defective, you
assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

\section{\textbf{Limitation of Liability.}\protect\footnote{We added a
 descriptive title for this section.}}

  In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
\sout{redistribute} \textbf{convey} the Program as permitted above, be
liable to you for damages, including any general, special, incidental or
consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use the
Program (including but not limited to loss of data or data being
rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a
failure of the Program to operate with any other programs), even if such
holder or other party has been advised of the possibility of such


\section{\sout{\hspace{-.17in}}\protect\footnote{We added the new
 disclaimer of section 18 assuming that it would be welcomed by
developers and distributors of safety-critical free software.  The
reaction to section 18 from this constituency has instead generally been
negative.  Companies involved in distributing safety-critical
applications have recommended that we remove the disclaimer, pointing
out that it may be preferable to rely on the general warranty and
liability disclaimers of sections 16 and 17 in the usual case and to add
a special disclaimer under section 7 when appropriate.  In light of
these comments, we have decided to remove section 18 from the GPLv3

  \sout{Unless specifically stated, the Program has not been tested for
use in safety critical systems.}


     \centerline{END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS\footnote{We have removed
from this draft the appended section on ``How to Apply These Terms to
Your New Programs.'' For brevity, the license document can instead refer
to a web page containing these instructions as a separate document.}}

by johns last modified 2006-07-27 13:05

Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: