Personal tools
You are here: Home GPLv3 third discussion draft rationale (LaTeX)
Document Actions

GPLv3 third discussion draft rationale (LaTeX)

Click here to get the file

Size 134.6 kB - File type text/x-tex

File contents


\newcommand\dblnew{\newpage \mbox\\ \newpage}


\title{GNU General Public License}



\huge{GPLv3 Third Discussion Draft Rationale}

\Large{Free Software Foundation}

Copyright \copyright\ 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street,
Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA\\ 

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is





This two-part document states the rationale for the changes in the third
discussion draft of GPLv3.  Part I provides a discussion of the most
significant changes we have made since the release of the previous
draft, organized by broad subject matter.  Part II is an annotated
markup version of the third draft, with \sout{strikeout} indicating text
present in the second discussion draft that we have removed and
\textbf{bold} indicating text we have added. The annotations state the
reasons for specific changes; some annotations refer the reader to Part
I. We refer to the first, second and third discussion drafts of GPLv3 as
``Draft 1,'' ``Draft 2'' and ``Draft 3,'' respectively.

We offer our apologies to the community for the delay in releasing Draft
3. Our original plan was to publish a third discussion draft in
mid-autumn of 2006.  The unforeseen agreement between Microsoft
Corporation and Novell, Inc., announced in November, presents grave
threats to users of free software.  It was necessary for us to take the
time carefully to develop mechanisms in GPLv3 that would deter
agreements of this sort and provide strong defenses against their
accompanying dangers. There were additional important and difficult
issues of law and policy that we wished to resolve prior to publication
of a new draft.

Given the extent of the changes that we have made in Draft 3, we will
not treat Draft 3 as a ``last call'' draft.  A public discussion period
of not less than 60 days will begin on the date of our release of Draft
3, after which we will release a last call draft.  Then, following a
30-day comment period, we will formally adopt the final version of


\part{Discussion of Principal Changes}


\section{Technical Barriers to Modification}\label{techbar}

GPLv3 introduces provisions that respond to the growing practice of
distributing GPL-covered programs in devices that employ technical means
to restrict users from installing and running modified versions.  This
practice thwarts the expectations of developers and users alike, because
the right to modify is one of the core freedoms the GPL is designed to
secure. In Draft 3 we have made a number of significant changes to these
provisions.  In brief, we condition the right to convey object code in a
defined class of ``User Products,'' under certain circumstances, on
providing whatever information is required to enable a recipient to
replace the object code with a functioning modified version.

\subsection{Provisions Moved to Section 6}\label{transfer}

We have moved the technical restrictions provisions from section 1,
where they formed part of the definition of Corresponding Source, to
section 6, where they are presented as a condition on the right to
convey object code works.  Some critics of the provisions in our earlier
drafts focused on what they regarded as an inappropriate equation of
cryptographic keys with source code.  Placing the requirements in
section 6 should make their purpose and reasonableness more
evident.\footnote{Moving the technical restrictions provisions out of
the definition of Corresponding Source is also appropriate because we
have placed additional conditions regarding Corresponding Source in the
second paragraph of section 10 and the third paragraph of section 11.
The policy concerns that inspired those provisions are satisfied if
complete source code is made available.}

The GPLv2 provisions requiring distribution of source code apply only to
distribution of binaries, because distribution of binaries without
source code can deny the user the effective freedom to change the
program. Technical restrictions are similar in that they can produce the
same harmful result.  The purpose of the source code requirement is to
enable the recipient to rebuild and use a functioning binary from
possibly-modified source \textit{in situ}.  The GPLv3 provisions
concerning technical restrictions ensure that they cannot interfere with
that result.

\subsection{User Products}\label{userprod}

In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys
applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was
part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of
Draft 3 now limits the applicability of the technical restrictions
provisions to object code conveyed in, with, or specifically for use in
a defined class of ``User Products.''

In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized
or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these
organizations actually want their systems not to be under their own
control. Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to
pressure, they ask for this as a preference. It is not clear that we
need to interfere, and the main problem lies elsewhere. 

While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest
practical concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most,
if not all, technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs
are consumer electronics devices, and we expect that to remain true in
the near future. Moreover, the disparity in clout between the
manufacturers and these users makes it difficult for the users to reject
technical restrictions through their weak and unorganized market
power. Even if limited to User Products, as defined in Draft 3, the
provision still does the job that needs to be done. Therefore we have
decided to limit the technical restrictions provisions to User Products
in this draft.

The core of the User Product definition is a subdefinition of ``consumer
product'' taken verbatim from the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal
consumer protection law in the United States: ``any tangible personal
property which is normally used for personal, family, or household
purposes.''\footnote{15 U.S.C.~\S\ 2301.}  The United States has had
three decades of experience of liberal judicial and administrative
interpretation of this definition in a manner favorable to consumer
rights.\footnote{The Magnuson-Moss consumer product definition itself
has been influential in the United States and Canada, having been
adopted in several state and provincial consumer protection laws.}  We
mean for this body of interpretation to guide interpretation of the
consumer product subdefinition in section 6, which will provide a degree
of legal certainty advantageous to device manufacturers and downstream
licensees alike.  Our incorporation of such legal interpretation is in
no way intended to work a general choice of United States law for GPLv3
as a whole.  The paragraph in section 6 defining ``User Product'' and
``consumer product'' contains an explicit statement to this effect,
bracketed for discussion.  We will decide whether to retain this
statement in the license text after gathering comment on it.

One well-established interpretive principle under Magnuson-Moss is that
ambiguities are resolved in favor of coverage.  That is, in cases where
it is not clear whether a product falls under the definition of consumer
product, the product will be treated as a consumer product.\footnote{16
C.F.R.~\S\ 700.1(a); \textit{McFadden v.~Dryvit Systems, Inc.}, 54
U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d 934 (D.~Ore.~2004).}  Moreover, for a given product,
``normally used'' is understood to refer to the typical use of that type
of product, rather than a particular use by a particular buyer.
Products that are commonly used for personal as well as commercial
purposes are consumer products, even if the person invoking rights is a
commercial entity intending to use the product for commercial
purposes.\footnote{16 C.F.R. \S \ 700.1(a).  Numerous court decisions
interpreting Magnuson-Moss are in accord; see, e.g., \textit{Stroebner
Motors, Inc.~v.~Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.}, 459 F.~Supp.2d 1028,
1033 (D.~Hawaii 2006).}  Even a small amount of ``normal'' personal use
is enough to cause an entire product line to be treated as a consumer
product under Magnuson-Moss.\footnote{\textit{Tandy Corp.~v.~Marymac
Industries, Inc.}, 213 U.S.P.Q.~702 (S.D.~Tex.~1981). In this case, the
court concluded that TRS-80 microcomputers were consumer products, where
such computers were designed and advertised for a variety of users,
including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
promoted for use in the home.}

We do not rely solely on the definition of consumer product, however,
because in the area of components of dwellings we consider the settled
interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive.  Depending on how
such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may not be
considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building materials
that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for improving
or modifying an existing dwelling, are consumer products under
Magnuson-Moss, but building materials that are integral component parts
of the structure of a dwelling at the time that the consumer buys the
dwelling are not consumer products. 16 C.F.R.~\S\S~700.1(c)--(f);
Federal Trade Commission, Final Action Concerning Review of
Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 64 Fed.~Reg.~19,700
(April 22, 1999); see also, e.g., \textit{McFadden}, 54
U.C.C.~Rep.~Serv.2d at 934.}  Therefore, we define User Products as a
superset of consumer products that also includes ``anything designed or
sold for incorporation into a dwelling.''

Although the User Products rule of Draft 3 reflects a special concern
for individual purchasers of devices, we wrote the rule to cover a
category of products, rather than categorizing users.  Discrimination
against organizational users has no place in a free software license.
Moreover, a rule that applied to individual use, rather than to use of
products normally used by individuals, would have too narrow an
effect. Because of its incorporation of the liberal Magnuson-Moss
interpretation of ``consumer product,'' the User Products rule benefits
not only individual purchasers of User Products but also all
organizational purchasers of those same kinds of products, regardless of
their intended use of the products.

We considered including medical devices for implantation in the human
body in the User Product definition.  We decided against this, however,
because there may be legitimate health and safety regulations concerning
inexpert and reckless modifications of medical devices. In any case, it
will probably be necessary to convince medical device regulators to
allow user-modifiable implantable medical devices.  We plan to begin a
campaign to address this issue.

\subsection{Installation Information}\label{install}

In our earlier drafts we devoted much care to devising a detailed
technical definition of the cryptographic information that would enable
GPL licensees to install functioning modified versions, without
affecting legitimate uses of encryption.  The result was a provision
that some found too complex and difficult to understand, while others
continued to raise concerns about overinclusion.  In fact, the
complexity and its resultant problems were never necessary, since our
underlying goal was quite simple.

In Draft 3 we instead use a definition of ``Installation Information''
in section 6 that is as simple and clear as that goal.  Installation
Information is information that is ``required to install and execute
modified versions of a covered work \dots from a modified version of its
Corresponding Source,'' in the same User Product for which the covered
work is conveyed.  We provide guidance concerning how much information
must be provided: it ``must suffice to ensure that the continued
functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or
interfered with solely because modification has been made.''  For
example, the information provided would be insufficient if it enabled a
modified version to run only in a disabled fashion, solely because of
the fact of modification (regardless of the actual nature of the
modification).  The information need not consist of cryptographic keys;
Installation Information may be ``any methods, procedures, authorization
keys, or other information.''

\subsection{Ephemeral Propagation}\label{ephem}

Some have expressed concern that our technical restrictions provisions
would extend to such cases as the ordinary use of a walkup Internet
kiosk.  We do not believe ephemeral propagation of this sort should
amount to ``conveying'' anywhere, and are confident that it is not
conveying under United States copyright law.\footnote{See, e.g.,
\textit{National Conference of Bar Examiners v.~Multistate Legal
Studies, Inc.}, 495 F.~Supp.~34, 37 (N.D.~Ill.~1980).  Here the court
concluded that no ``publication'' for copyright law purposes took place
where tests were temporarily distributed and retrieved at the end of the
testing period. Note that an Internet kiosk would not be classified as a
User Product.}  Nevertheless, we have sought in Draft 3 to satisfy such
concerns by making clear that the requirement to provide Installation
Information applies only in the case of conveying of object code that
``occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and
use \dots is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed
term.'' The particular characterization of the transaction is
immaterial; the requirements cover, for example, outright sales,
long-term leases, and installment purchases of User Products.

\subsection{Inherently Unmodifiable Copies}\label{unmod}

We do not object to the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code
burned in ROM or embedded in silicon.  What we find ethically
objectionable is the refusal to pass on to the downstream licensee the
real right to modify, coupled with the retention of that right in the
device manufacturer or some other party.  Our text has never prohibited
distribution in ROM, but we have decided to make the point explicitly,
for clarity's sake. Accordingly, our text states that the requirement to
provide Installation Information ``does not apply if neither you nor any
third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the
User Product.''

\subsection{Network Access and Other Limitations}\label{netacc}

The definition of Installation Information states that the information
provided ``must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the
modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely
because modification has been made.''  We did not consider it necessary
to define ``continued functioning'' further. However, we believed it
would be appropriate to provide some additional guidance concerning the
scope of GPLv3-compliant action or inaction that distributors of
technically-restricted User Products can take with respect to a
downstream recipient who replaces the conveyed object code with a
modified version.  We make clear that GPLv3 implies no obligation ``to
continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates'' for such a

Most technically-restricted User Products are designed to communicate
across networks.  It is important for both users and network providers
to know when denial of network access to devices running modified
versions becomes a GPL violation.  We settled on a rule that permits
denial of access in two cases: ``when the modification itself materially
and adversely affects the operation of the network,'' and when the
modification itself ``violates the rules and protocols for communication
across the network.''  The second case is deliberately drawn in general
terms.  We intend it to serve as a foundation for development of
reasonable enforcement policies that respect recipients' right to modify
while recognizing the legitimate interests of network providers.

\subsection{Removal of Section 3, First Paragraph}\label{3p1}

We have removed the first paragraph of section 3, the scope of which
overlapped with the more detailed technical restrictions provisions we
have placed in section 6, as well as with the more general prohibition
on further restrictions now stated in the third paragraph of section 10.


What was the second paragraph of section 3 in Draft 2, concerning
so-called anticircumvention law, has been broken up into two paragraphs.
In the first paragraph we have replaced the reference to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, a United States statute, with a corresponding
international legal reference to anticircumvention laws enacted pursuant
to the 1996 WIPO treaty and any similar laws.  Lawyers outside the
United States have worried that a United States statutory reference
could be read as indicating a choice for application of United States
law to the license as a whole, which of course was not our intention.
Further research has caused us to doubt the view that only one or the
other paragraph of section 3 will typically be effective in a country
that has enacted an anticircumvention law.  Moreover, we believe that
several national anticircumvention laws have been or will be structured
more similarly to the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act than to the counterpart provisions of the
European Union Copyright Directive.

In the second paragraph of section 3, we now state more precisely that a
conveying party waives the power to forbid circumvention of
technological measures only to the extent that such circumvention is
accomplished through the exercise of GPL rights in the conveyed work. We
have made two changes in the disclaimer of intention regarding
limitations on the design and use of the work. First, we make clear that
the referenced ``legal rights'' are specifically rights arising under
anticircumvention law.  Second, we now refer to the conveying party's
rights in addition to third party rights, as in some cases the conveying
party will also be the party legally empowered to enforce or invoke
rights arising under anticircumvention law.


Software patenting is a harmful and unjust policy, and should be
abolished; recent experience makes this all the more evident. Since many
countries grant patents that can apply to and prohibit software
packages, in various guises and to varying degrees, we seek to protect
the users of GPL-covered programs from those patents, while at the same
time making it feasible for patent holders to contribute to and
distribute GPL-covered programs as long as they do not attack the users
of those programs.  

Therefore, we have designed GPLv3 to reduce the patent risks that
distort and threaten the activities of users who make, run, modify and
share free software.  At the same time, we have given due consideration
to practical goals such as certainty and administrability for patent
holders that participate in distribution and development of GPL-covered
software.  Our policy requires each such patent holder to provide
appropriate levels of patent assurance to users, according to the nature
of the patent holder's relationship to the program.

Draft 3 features several significant changes concerning patents.  We
have made improvements to earlier wording, clarified when patent
assertion becomes a prohibited restriction on GPL rights, and replaced a
distribution-triggered non-assertion covenant with a contribution-based
patent license grant. We have also added provisions to block collusion
by patent holders with software distributors that would extend patent
licenses in a discriminatory way.

\subsection{Contributors and Contributions}\label{contrib-def}

Draft 3 introduces the terms ``contributor'' and ``contribution,'' which
are used in the third paragraph of section 10 and the first paragraph of
section 11, discussed successively in the following two subsections.
Section 0 defines a contributor as ``a party who licenses under this
License a work on which the Program is based.'' That work is the
``contribution'' of that contributor.  In other words, each received
GPLv3-covered work is associated with one or more contributors, making
up the finite set of upstream GPLv3 licensors for that work. Viewed from
the perspective of a recipient of the Program, contributors include all
the copyright holders for the Program, other than copyright holders of
material originally licensed under non-GPL terms and later incorporated
into a GPL-covered work.  The contributors are therefore the initial
GPLv3 licensors of the Program and all subsequent upstream licensors who
convey, under the terms of section 5, modified works on which the
Program is based.

For a contributor whose contribution is a modified work conveyed under
section 5, the contribution is ``the entire work, as a whole'' which the
contributor is required to license under GPLv3.  The contribution
therefore includes not just the material added or altered by the
contributor, but also the pre-existing material the contributor copied
from the upstream version and retained in the modified version. Our
usage of ``contributor'' and ``contribution'' should not be confused
with the various other ways in which those terms are used in certain
other free software licenses.\footnote{Cf., e.g., Apache License,
version 2.0, section 1; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 1;
Mozilla Public License, version 1.1, section 1.1.}

\subsection{Patent Assertion as a Further Restriction}\label{pat-assert}\label{s2patretal}

It is generally understood that GPLv2 implies some limits on a
licensee's power to assert patent claims against the use of GPL-covered
works.  There is, however, no general agreement concerning the nature,
scope, and source of those limitations.  To the extent that they are
grounded in legal doctrines of patent exhaustion or implied patent
license, such limits necessarily will vary substantially across

Careful readers of the GPL have suggested that its explicit prohibition
against imposition of further restrictions\footnote{GPLv2, section 6;
Draft 3, section 10, third paragraph.} has, or ought to have,
implications for those who assert patents against other licensees.
Draft 2 took some steps to clarify this point in a manner not specific
to patents, by describing the imposition of ``a license fee, royalty, or
other charge'' for exercising GPL rights as one example of an
impermissible further restriction.  In Draft 3 we have clarified further
that the requirement of non-imposition of further restrictions has
specific consequences for litigation accusing GPL-covered programs of
infringement.  Section 10 now states that ``you may not initiate
litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling,
offering for sale, or importing the Program (or the contribution of any
contributor).''  That is to say, a patent holder's licensed permissions
to use a work under GPLv3 may be terminated under section 8 if the
patent holder files a lawsuit alleging that use of the work, or of any
upstream GPLv3-licensed work on which the work is based, infringes a

The patent license grant of the first paragraph of section 11 no longer
applies to those who merely distribute works without modification. (We
explain why we made this change in the next subsection.) Such parties
are nonetheless subject to the conditions stated in section 10.  Unlike
the patent license, which establishes a defense for downstream users
lasting for as long as they remain in compliance with the GPL, the
commitment not to sue that arises under section 10 is one that the
distributor can end, so long as the distributor also ceases to
distribute.  This is because a party who initiates patent litigation in
violation of section 10 risks termination of its licensed permissions by
the copyright holders of the work.

In Draft 3 the termination provision of section 8 has been revised to
indicate that, if a licensee violates the GPL, a contributor may
terminate any patent licenses that it granted under the first paragraph
of section 11 to that licensee, in addition to any copyright permissions
the contributor granted to the licensee.  Therefore, a contributor may
terminate the patent licenses it granted to a downstream licensee who
brings patent infringement litigation in violation of section 10.

The changes we have made to sections 8, 10 and 11, taken as a whole,
eliminate the special need for the narrow patent retaliation provision
of section 2, which we have removed in Draft 3.

\subsection{Contribution-Based Patent License Grant}\label{contrib}

Our previous drafts featured a patent license grant triggered by all
acts of distribution of GPLv3-covered works.\footnote{In Draft 2 we
rewrote the patent license as a covenant not to assert patent claims. We
explain why we reverted to the form of a patent license grant in \S\
\ref{cov}.} Many patent-holding companies objected to this policy. They
have made two objections: (1) the far-reaching impact of the patent
license grant on the patent holder is disproportionate to the act of
merely distributing code without modification or transformation, and (2)
it is unreasonable to expect an owner of vast patent assets to exercise
requisite diligence in reviewing all the GPL-covered software that it
provides to others.  Some expressed particular concern about the
consequences of ``inadvertent'' distribution.

The argument that the impact of the patent license grant would be
``disproportionate,'' that is to say unfair, is not valid. Since
software patents are weapons that no one should have, and using them for
aggression against free software developers is an egregious act,
preventing that act cannot be unfair. 

However, the second argument seems valid in a practical sense.  A
typical GNU/Linux distribution includes thousands of programs. It would
be quite difficult for a redistributor with a large patent portfolio to
review all those programs against that portfolio every time it receives
and passes on a new version of the distribution. Moreover, this question
raises a strategic issue. If the GPLv3 patent license requirements
convince patent-holding companies to remain outside the distribution
path of all GPL-covered software, then these requirements, no matter how
strong, will cover few patents. 

We concluded it would be more effective to make a partial concession
which would lead these companies to feel secure in doing the
distribution themselves, so that the conditions of section 10 would
apply to assertion of their patents.  We therefore made the stricter
section 11 patent license apply only to those distributors that have
modified the program.  The other changes we have made in sections 10 and
11 provide strengthened defenses against patent assertion and compensate
partly for this concession. 

We have rejected a suggestion by companies that the patent license grant
should only cover patent claims that read on the ``changes'' and
``additions'' that the contributor has made to a work, perhaps also
extending, in some ill-defined way, to patent claims that are infringed
specifically as a result of the combination of those modifications with
the rest of the work. 

Such a narrow rule is unacceptable because it would do too little.
Given the manner in which software patent claims are drafted, we fear
that few patent claims would fit that criterion and be licensed.  Even
substantial modifications to a work are typically fragmentary from a
patent infringement perspective.  They are not in themselves likely to
read on a patent claim drawn to cover a broader or complete system or
method.  Moreover, in cases where a patent claim held by a distributor
relates closely to the modification it has made to a work, it will often
be the case that the modification itself does not ``cause'' the entire
modified work to read on the claim, such as when the claim is broad
enough to cover the original work in the form in which it was received
by the distributor.

Therefore, in Draft 3, the first paragraph of section 11 states that a
contributor's patent license covers all the essential patent claims
implemented by the whole program as that contributor distributes it.
Contributors of modified works grant a patent license to claims that
read on ``the entire work, as a whole.'' This is the work that the
copyleft clause in section 5 requires the contributor to license under
GPLv3; it includes the material the contributor has copied from the
upstream version that the contributor has modified.  The first paragraph
of section 11 does not apply to those that redistribute the program
without change.\footnote{An implied patent license from the distributor,
however, may arise by operation of law. See the final paragraph of
section 11.  Moreover, distributors are subject to the limits on patent
assertion contained in the third paragraph of section 10.} 

We hope that this decision will result in fairly frequent licensing of
patent claims by contributors.  A contributor is charged with awareness
of the fact that it has modified a work and provided it to others; no
act of contribution should be treated as inadvertent.  Our rule also
requires no more work, for a contributor, than the weaker rule proposed
by the patent holders.  Under their rule, the contributor must always
compare the entire work against its patent portfolio to determine
whether the combination of the modifications with the remainder of the
work cause it to read on any of the contributor's patent claims.

\subsubsection{Essential Patent Claims}\label{epc}

We have made three changes to the definition of ``essential patent
claims'' in section 0.  This definition now serves exclusively to
identify the set of patent claims licensed by a contributor under the
first paragraph of section 11.

First, we have clarified when essential patent claims include
sublicensable claims that have been licensed to the contributor by a
third party.\footnote{This issue is typically handled in other free
software licenses having patent licensing provisions by use of the
unhelpful term ``licensable,'' which is either left undefined or is
given an ambiguous definition.}  Most commercial patent license
agreements that permit sublicensing do so under restrictive terms that
are inconsistent with the requirements of the GPL.  For example, some
patent licenses allow the patent licensee to sublicense but require
collection of royalties from any sublicensees.  The patent licensee
could not distribute a GPL-covered program and grant the recipient a
patent sublicense for the program without violating section 12 of
GPLv3.\footnote{Draft 3 provides a new example in section 12 that makes
this point clear.}  In rare cases, however, a conveying party can freely
grant patent sublicenses to downstream recipients without violating the

Draft 3 now defines essential patent claims, for a given party, as a
subset of the claims ``owned or controlled'' by the party.  The
definition states that ``control includes the right to grant sublicenses
in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.''
Therefore, in the case of a patent license that requires collection of
royalties from sublicensees, essential patent claims would not include
any claims sublicensable under that patent license, because sublicenses
to those claims could not be granted consistent with section 12.

Second, we now state that essential patent claims are those ``that would
be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making,
using, or selling the work.'' This modified wording is intended to make
clear that a patent claim is ``essential'' if some mode of usage would
infringe that claim, even if there are other modes of usage that would
not infringe.

Third, we have clarified that essential patent claims ``do not include
claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further
modification of the work.''  That is to say, the set of essential patent
claims licensed under the first paragraph of section 11 is fixed by the
the particular version of the work that was contributed.  The claim set
cannot expand as a work is further modified downstream.  (If it could,
then any software patent claim would be included, since any software
patent claim can be infringed by some further modification of the
work.)\footnote{However, ``the work'' should not be understood to be
restricted to a particular mechanical affixation of, or medium for
distributing, a program, where the same program might be provided in
other forms or in other ways that may be captured by other patent claims
held by the contributor.}

\subsubsection{Change Back from Covenant to License}\label{cov}

The first paragraph of section 11 is meant to give an effective defense
to assertion of a contributor's patent, even if the contributor later
assigns that patent to a third party.  In the United States, a patent
license is generally understood to have the default property of running
with the associated patent, which means that a subsequent owner of the
patent acquires it subject to any previously-granted
licenses.\footnote{See, e.g., \textit{L.L.~Brown Paper
Co.~v.~Hydroiloid, Inc.}, 118 F.2d 674, 677 (2d Cir.~1941). We are told
that a similar rule applies under German law.}  By contrast, in the
United States, a covenant not to sue is seen as personal to the
covenanting parties, and it is less clear that it would automatically
bind future owners of the patent without notice or specific wording
designed to have that effect.  We have decided, therefore, to revert the
form of the first paragraph of section 11 to a patent license grant, in
place of the covenant not to assert patent claims of Draft 2.  In making
this decision, we were influenced also by the greater comfort some
lawyers appeared to derive from the more familiar construct of a patent
license, though the basis for that comfort does not seem entirely
rational.\footnote{These practitioners appear to make two assumptions
that we find questionable: (a) mere recitation in a copyright license
provision of certain magic words associated with patent licenses is
enough to make such a provision more akin to a formal patent license
agreement than to a covenant not to sue, and (b) the absence of such
magic words by itself causes such a provision not to have the relevant
properties of a patent license.}

\subsection{Regulation of Collusive Practices}

Section 7 of GPLv2 (now section 12 of GPLv3) has seen some success in
deterring conduct that would otherwise result in denial of full
downstream enjoyment of GPL rights.  Experience has shown us that more
is necessary, however, to ensure adequate community safety where
companies act in concert to heighten the anticompetitive use of patents
that they hold or license.  Previous drafts of GPLv3 included a
``downstream shielding'' provision in section 11, which we have further
refined in Draft 3; it is now found in the third paragraph of section
11.  In addition, Draft 3 introduces two new provisions in section 11,
located in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, that address the problem of
collusive extension of patent forbearance promises that discriminate
against particular classes of users and against the exercise of
particular freedoms. This problem has been made more acute by the recent
Microsoft/Novell deal.

\subsubsection{Definition of ``Patent License''}\label{patlic-defn}

The term ``patent license,'' as used in the third through fifth
paragraphs of section 11, is not meant to be confined to agreements
formally identified or classified as patent licenses.  The new second
paragraph of section 11 makes this clear by defining ``patent license,''
for purposes of the subsequent three paragraphs, as ``a patent license,
a covenant not to bring suit for patent infringement, or any other
express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a
patent.''  The definition does not include patent licenses that arise by
implication or operation of law, because the third through fifth
paragraphs of section 11 are specifically concerned with explicit
promises that purport to be legally enforceable.

\subsubsection{Downstream Shielding}\label{shield}

The downstream shielding provision of section 11 responds particularly
to the problem of exclusive deals between patent holders and
distributors, which threaten to distort the free software distribution
system in a manner adverse to developers and users. Draft 2 added a
source code availability option to this provision, as a specific
alternative to the general requirement to shield downstream users from
patent claims licensed to the distributor. A distributor conveying a
covered work knowingly relying on a patent license may comply with the
provision by ensuring that the Corresponding Source of the work is
publicly available, free of charge.  We retained the shielding option in
Draft 2 because we did not wish to impose a general requirement to make
source code available to all, which has never been a GPL condition.

The addition of the source code availability option was supported by the
free software vendors most likely to be affected by the downstream
shielding provision.  Enterprises that primarily use and occasionally
distribute free software, however, raised concerns regarding the
continued inclusion of a broadly-worded requirement to ``shield,'' which
appears to have been mistakenly read by those parties as creating an
obligation to indemnify.  To satisfy these concerns, in Draft 3 we have
replaced the option to shield with two specific alternatives to the
source code availability option. The distributor may comply by
disclaiming the patent license it has been granted for the conveyed
work, or by arranging to extend the patent license to downstream
recipients.\footnote{The latter option, if chosen, must be done ``in a
manner consistent with the requirements of this License''; for example,
it is unavailable if extension of the patent license would result in a
violation of section 12. Cf.~the discussion of sublicensable patent
claims in \S\ \ref{epc}.}  The GPL is intended to permit private
distribution as well as public distribution, and the addition of these
options ensures that this remains the case, even though we expect that
distributors in this situation will usually choose the source code
availability option.

Without altering its underlying logic, we have modified the phrasing of
the requirement to make clear that it is activated only if the
Corresponding Source is not already otherwise publicly available.  (Most
often it will, in fact, already be available on some network server
operated by a third party.)  Even if it is not already available, the
option to ``cause the Corresponding Source to be so available'' can then
be satisfied by verifying that a third party has acted to make it
available.  That is to say, the affected distributor need not itself
host the Corresponding Source to take advantage of the source code
availability option.  This subtlety may help the distributor avoid
certain peculiar assumptions of liability.

We have made two other changes to the downstream shielding provision.
The phrase ``knowingly rely'' was left undefined in our earlier drafts;
in Draft 3 we have provided a detailed definition.  We have also deleted
the condition precedent, added in Draft 2, that the relied-upon patent
license be one that is non-sublicensable and ``not generally available
to all''; this was imprecise in Draft 2 and is unnecessary in Draft
3. In nearly all cases in which the ``knowingly relying'' test is met,
the patent license will indeed not be sublicensable or generally
available to all on free terms.  If, on the other hand, the patent
license is generally available under terms consistent with the
requirements of the GPL, the distributor is automatically in compliance,
because the patent license has already been extended to all downstream
recipients.  If the patent license is sublicensable on GPL-consistent
terms, the distributor may choose to grant sublicenses to downstream
recipients instead of causing source code to be publicly available.  In
such a case, if the distributor is also a contributor, it will already
have granted a patent sublicense by operation of the first paragraph of
section 11,\footnote{See \S\ \ref{epc}.} and so it need not do anything
further to comply with the third paragraph.

\subsubsection{Discriminatory Patent Promises}

A software patent forbids the use of a technique or algorithm, and its
existence is a threat to all software developers and users.  A patent
holder can use a patent to suppress any program which implements the
patented technique, even if thousands of other techniques are
implemented together with it.  Both free software and proprietary
software are threatened with death in this way.  

However, patents threaten free software with a fate worse than death: a
patent holder might also try to use the patent to impose restrictions on
use or distribution of a free program, such as to make users feel they
must pay for permission to use it.  This would effectively make it
proprietary software, exactly what the GPL is intended to prevent.

Novell and Microsoft have recently attempted a new way of using patents
against our community, which involves a narrow and discriminatory
promise by a patent holder not to sue customers of one particular
distributor of a GPL-covered program.  Such deals threaten our community
in several ways, each of which may be regarded as de facto
proprietization of the software.  If users are frightened into paying
that one distributor just to be safe from lawsuits, in effect they are
paying for permission to use the program.  They effectively deny even
these customers the full and safe exercise of some of the freedoms
granted by the GPL.  And they make disfavored free software developers
and distributors more vulnerable to attacks of patent aggression, by
dividing them from another part of our community, the commercial users
that might otherwise come to their defense.

We have added the fourth and fifth paragraphs of section 11 to combat
this threat.  This subsection briefly describes the operation of the new
provisions.  We follow it with a more detailed separate note on the
Microsoft/Novell patent deal, in which we provide an extensive rationale
for these measures.

\paragraph*{\textit{Section 11, Fourth Paragraph.}}\label{11par4}

As noted, one effect of the discriminatory patent promise is to divide
and isolate those who make free software from the commercial users to
whom the promise is extended.  This deprives the noncommercial
developers of the communal defensive measures against patents made
possible by the support of those commercial users.  The fourth paragraph
of section 11 operates to restore effective defenses to the targets of
patent aggression.

A patent holder becomes subject to the fourth paragraph of section 11
when it enters into a transaction or arrangement that involves two acts:
(1) conveying a GPLv3-covered work, and (2) offering to some, but not
all, of the work's eventual users a patent license for particular
activities using specific copies of the covered work.  This paragraph
only operates when the two triggering acts are part of a single
arrangement, because the patent license is part of the arrangement for
conveying, which requires copyright permission.  Under those conditions,
the discriminatory patent license is ``automatically extended to all
recipients of the covered work and works based on it.''

This provision establishes a defense to infringement allegations brought
by the patent holder against any users of the program who are not
covered by the discriminatory patent license.  That is to say, it gives
all recipients the benefit of the patent promise that the patent holder
extended only to some. The effect is to make contributing discriminatory
promises of patent safety to a GPL distribution essentially like
contributing code. In both cases, the operation of the GPL extends
license permission to everyone that receives a copy of the program.

\paragraph*{\textit{Section 11, Fifth Paragraph.}}\label{11par5}

The fourth paragraph of section 11 gives users a defense against patent
aggression brought by the party who made the discriminatory patent
promise that excluded them. By contrast, the fifth paragraph stops free
software vendors from contracting with patent holders to make
discriminatory patent promises.  In effect, the fifth paragraph extends
the principle of section 12 to situations involving collusion between a
patent holder and a distributor.

Under this provision, a distributor conveying a GPL-covered program may
not make an arrangement to get a discriminatory patent promise from a
third party for its customers, covering copies of the program (or
products that contain the program), if the arrangement requires the
distributor to make payment to the third party based on the extent of
its activity in conveying the program, and if the third party is itself
in the business of distributing software. Unlike the fourth paragraph,
which creates a legal defense for targets of patent aggression, the
consequence for violation of the fifth paragraph is termination of GPL
permissions for the distributor.

\subsubsection{Note on the Microsoft/Novell Deal}

The business, technical, and patent cooperation agreement between
Microsoft and Novell announced in November 2006 has significantly
affected the development of Draft 3.  The fourth and fifth paragraphs of
section 11 embody our response to the sort of threat represented by the
Microsoft/Novell deal, and are designed to protect users from such
deals, and prevent or deter the making of such deals.

The details of the agreements entered into between Microsoft and Novell,
though subject to eventual public disclosure through the securities
regulation system, have not been fully disclosed to this
point.\footnote{Lawyers employed by the Software Freedom Law Center,
which is counsel to the Free Software Foundation and other relevant free
software clients, were accorded limited access to the terms of the deal
under a non-disclosure agreement between SFLC and Novell.  The reasons
for delay in the application of securities regulations requiring
publication of the relevant contracts are unrelated to the deal between
Microsoft and Novell.}  It is a matter of public knowledge, however,
that the arrangement calls for Novell to pay a portion of the future
gross revenue of one of its divisions to Microsoft, and that (as one
other feature of a complex arrangement) Microsoft has promised Novell's
customers not to bring patent infringement actions against certain
specific copies of Novell's SUSE ``Linux''\footnote{This is a GNU/Linux
distribution, and is properly called SUSE GNU/Linux Enterprise Server.}
Enterprise Server product for which Novell receives revenue from the
user, so long as the user does not make or distribute additional copies
of SLES.

The basic harm that such an agreement can do is to make the free
software subject to it effectively proprietary.  This result occurs to
the extent that users feel compelled, by the threat of the patent, to
get their copies in this way.  So far, the Microsoft/Novell deal does
not seem to have had this result, or at least not very much: users do
not seem to be choosing Novell for this reason.  But we cannot take for
granted that such threats will always fail to harm the community.  We
take the threat seriously, and we have decided to act to block such
threats, and to reduce their potential to do harm.  Such deals also
offer patent holders a crack through which to split the community.
Offering commercial users the chance to buy limited promises of patent
safety in effect invites each of them to make a separate peace with
patent aggressors, and abandon the rest of our community to its fate.

Microsoft has been restrained from patent aggression in the past by the
vocal opposition of its own enterprise customers, who now also use free
software systems to run critical applications.  Public statements by
Microsoft concerning supposed imminent patent infringement actions have
spurred resistance from users Microsoft cannot afford to alienate.  But
if Microsoft can gain royalties from commercial customers by assuring
them that \textit{their} copies of free software have patent licenses
through a deal between Microsoft and specific GNU/Linux vendors,
Microsoft would then be able to pressure each user individually, and
each distributor individually, to treat the software as proprietary.  If
enough users succumb, it might eventually gain a position to terrify
noncommercial developers into abandoning the software entirely.

Preventing these harms is the goal of the new provisions of section 11.
The fourth paragraph deals with the most acute danger posed by
discrimination among customers, by ensuring that any party who
distributes others' GPL-covered programs, and makes promises of patent
safety limited to some but not all recipients of copies of those
specific programs, automatically extends its promises of patent safety
to cover all recipients of all copies of the covered works.  This will
negate part of the harm of the Microsoft/Novell deal, for GPLv3-covered

In addition to the present deal, however, GPLv3 must act to deter
similar future arrangements, and it cannot be assumed that all future
arrangements by Microsoft or other potential patent aggressors will
involve procuring the conveyance of the program by the party that grants
the discriminatory promises of patent safety.  Therefore, we need the
fifth paragraph as well, which is aimed at parties that play the Novell
role in a different range of possible deals.

Drafting this paragraph was difficult because it is necessary to
distinguish between pernicious agreements and other kinds of agreements
which do not have an acutely harmful effect, such as patent
contributions, insurances, customary cross-license promises to
customers, promises incident to ordinary asset transfers, and standard
settlement practices.  We believe that we have achieved this, but it is
hard to be sure, so we are considering making this paragraph apply only
to agreements signed in the future.  If we do that, companies would only
need to structure future agreements in accord with the fifth paragraph,
and would not face problems from past agreements that cannot be changed
now.  We are not yet convinced that this is necessary, and we plan to
ask for more comment on the question. This is why the date-based cutoff
is included in brackets. 

One drawback of this cutoff date is that it would ``let Novell off''
from part of the response to its deal with Microsoft. However, this may
not be a great drawback, because the fourth paragraph will apply to that
deal. We believe it is sufficient to ensure either the deal's voluntary
modification by Microsoft or its reduction to comparative harmlessness.
Novell expected to gain commercial advantage from its patent deal with
Microsoft; the effects of the fourth paragraph in undoing the harm of
that deal will necessarily be visited upon Novell.

\section{Additional Terms}

Section 7 of Draft 2 set forth comprehensive rules concerning the
effects of additional permissions and requirements on users' rights, and
the freedom to add such terms to works conveyed under the GPL.
Following the release of Draft 2, reaction to section 7 centered on
subsection 7b, which enumerated categories of additional requirements
that licensors could place on code added to a covered work.  Many
contended that any increase in developer convenience resulting from 7b
was offset by what they saw as harm from a loss of uniform treatment
under the GPL.  Some regarded 7b as effectively authorizing variant
versions of GPLv3, which, they argued, would lead to confusion and
administrative difficulty.

Although some of the objections to 7b were quite general, criticism was
focused on two of the 7b categories.  One, clause 7b4, was designed to
make compatible the additional requirement of the Affero General Public
License, and similar requirements for providing source code to users
interacting with modified versions remotely through a network.  The
other, clause 7b5, defined classes of compatible patent retaliation
clauses.  There was little criticism of the other specific 7b
categories, 7b0--7b3, which generally codified our analysis of license
compatibility issues under GPLv2.

As we explain in further detail below, Draft 3 removes the 7b4 and 7b5
categories from section 7.  We have addressed some of their underlying
goals through other mechanisms, and we have decided to abandon their
other goals.  This change made possible a considerable
simplification. We have also made other improvements to section 7.

\subsection{Patent Retaliation}\label{7b5}

The 7b5 clause stated two disjunctive criteria for patent retaliation
provisions that could be added to the terms applicable to a covered
work.  In Draft 3 we no longer allow the terms of GPLv3 to be
supplemented by patent retaliation clauses matching the first criterion.
A patent termination condition matching the second criterion has been
incorporated into the terms of GPLv3 itself through changes we have made
in other parts of the license.

\subsubsection{Patent Aggression}\label{7b5-1}

The first category identified in 7b5 consisted of termination provisions
activated by the filing of non-retaliatory or non-defensive software
patent lawsuits.  This was not intended to enhance compatibility of
existing free software licenses with the GPL, as, to our knowledge, no
such license fell within the category.  Its inclusion was, in part, a
reaction to overbroad patent retaliation clauses that have featured in
certain licenses in recent years.  Our view was that retaliation clauses
not restricted to litigation closely related to covered material ought
to limit their scope to acts of patent aggression.  We had no intention
of using such clauses in our own licenses, but we believed it would be
worthwhile to encourage patent retaliation enthusiasts to experiment
with clauses satisfying that criterion.

Although our goal therefore was actually to discourage overbroad patent
retaliation, some have objected to the first 7b5 category as being
itself unreasonably broad. These critics have pointed in particular to
the absence of any required subject-matter connection between the
lawsuit and the licensor of the retaliation terms.  It is not clear that
that argument is valid, but since no one seems eager to use such patent
retaliation terms, we decided to remove this option, thus clearing the
way for a major simplification of section 7.

\subsubsection{Accusation of Covered Material}\label{7b5-2}

Our inclusion of the second 7b5 category recognized the reasonableness
of patent retaliation clauses activated by litigation in which the
alleged infringement involved use of the licensed material.  Notable
examples of such retaliation clauses are found in the Apache License,
version 2.0, and the Eclipse Public License.\footnote{Apache License,
version 2.0, section 3; Eclipse Public License, version 1.0, section 7.}
We had hoped that this category would provide a formal basis for
achieving GPLv3 compatibility for those two free software licenses in
particular, expanding the set of code available to developers in our
respective license communities.

Changes made to sections 8 and 10 in Draft 3 make it unnecessary to
state this criterion in section 7 in order to advance the goal of
enhanced license compatibility.  Section 10 now indicates that certain
kinds of patent assertion are ``further restrictions'' on the exercise
of GPL rights. Imposition of such restrictions can lead to termination
of rights under section 8, including termination of patent licenses
granted under the first paragraph of section 11.  Section 10 states in
particular that a licensee ``may not initiate litigation (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim
is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing
the Program (or the contribution of any contributor).''

Read together, sections 8, 10 and 11 establish a patent termination
condition for GPLv3, the scope of which is no narrower than that of the
Apache/EPL variety of retaliation clause.  The patent retaliation
clauses in such licenses therefore do not constitute ``further''
restrictions on the exercise of GPLv3 rights.  These provisions are
compatible with Draft 3, just as they were compatible with Draft 2
through the 7b5 clause. (We consider differences in details of
enforcement procedure to be irrelevant in conducting license
compatibility analysis.)\footnote{This is not to say that other issues
of compatibility of the Apache license and the EPL have been solved by
GPLv3.  We explain the difficulty with the Apache license below, in
\linebreak \S\ \ref{apache}. As for the EPL, there remain numerous other
features in that license that are incompatible with Draft 3.  We could
not change that result without abandoning the strong copyleft
altogether.  We encourage the Eclipse Foundation to revise the EPL to
permit relicensing under the GPL.}

\subsection{Public Use and the Affero GPL}\label{agpl}\label{7b4}

The main purpose of clause 7b4 was to attain GPLv3 compatibility for the
additional condition of version 1 of the Affero GPL, with a view to
achieving compatibility for a future version, since version 1 was
incompatible with GPLv3.\footnote{Version 1 of the Affero GPL contains
its own copyleft clause, worded identically to that in GPLv2, which
conflicts with the copyleft clause in GPLv3.  The Affero GPL permits
relicensing under versions of the GPL later than version 2, but only if
the later version ``includes terms and conditions substantially
equivalent to those of this license'' (Affero GPL, version 1, section
9). The Affero license was written with the expectation that its
additional requirement would be incorporated into the terms of GPLv3
itself, rather than being placeable on parts added to a covered work
through the mechanism of section 7 of GPLv3.}  However, we wrote the
clause broadly enough to cover a range of other possible terms that
would differ from the Affero condition in their details. Draft 3 no
longer pursues the more ambitious goal of allowing compatibility for a
whole category of Affero-like terms.  In place of 7b4, we have added a
new section 13 that simply permits GPLv3-covered code to be linked with
code covered by the forthcoming version 2 of the Affero GPL.

We have made this decision in the face of irreconcilable views from
different parts of our community.  While we had known that many
commercial users of free software were opposed to the inclusion of a
mandatory Affero-like requirement in the body of GPLv3 itself, we were
surprised at their opposition to its availability through section 7.
Free software vendors allied to these users joined in their objections,
as did a number of free software developers arguing on ethical as well
as practical grounds.

Some of this hostility seemed to be based on a misapprehension that
Affero-like terms placed on part of a covered work would somehow extend
to the whole of the work.\footnote{It is possible that the presence of
the GPLv2-derived copyleft clause in the existing Affero GPL contributed
to this misunderstanding.}  Our explanations to the contrary did little
to satisfy these critics; their objections to 7b4 instead evolved into a
broader indictment of the additional requirements scheme of section 7.
It was clear, however, that much of the concern about 7b4 stemmed from
its general formulation.  Many were alarmed at the prospect of GPLv3
compatibility for numerous Affero-like licensing conditions,
unpredictable in their details but potentially having significant
commercial consequences.

On the other hand, many developers, otherwise sympathetic to the policy
goals of the Affero GPL, have objected to the form of the additional
requirement in that license.  These developers were generally
disappointed with our decision to allow Affero-like terms through
section 7, rather than adopt a condition for GPLv3.  Echoing their
concerns about the Affero GPL itself, they found fault with the wording
of the section 7 clause in both of the earlier drafts.  We drafted 7b4
at a higher level than its Draft 1 counterpart based in part on comments
from these developers. They considered the Draft 1 clause too closely
tied to the Affero mechanism of preserving functioning facilities for
downloading source, which they found too restrictive of the right of
modification.  The 7b4 rewording did not satisfy them, however. They
objected to its limitation to terms requiring compliance by network
transmission of source, and to the technically imprecise or inaccurate
use of the phrase ``same network session.''

We have concluded that any redrafting of the 7b4 clause would fail to
satisfy the concerns of both sets of its critics.  The first group
maintains that GPLv3 should do nothing about the problem of public
use. The second group would prefer for GPLv3 itself to have an
Affero-like condition, but that seems to us too drastic. By permitting
GPLv3-covered code to be linked with code covered by version 2 of the
Affero GPL, the new section 13 honors our original commitment to
achieving GPL compatibility for the Affero license.

Version 2 of the Affero GPL is not yet published.  We will work with
Affero, Inc., and with all other interested members of our community, to
complete the drafting of this license following the release of Draft 3,
with a goal of having a final version available by the time of our
adoption of the final version of GPLv3.  We hope the new Affero license
will satisfy those developers who are concerned about the issue of
public use of unconveyed versions but who have concerns about the
narrowness of the condition in the existing Affero license.

As the second sentence in section 13 indicates, when a combined work is
made by linking GPLv3-covered code with Affero-covered code, the
copyleft on one part will not extend to the other part.\footnote{The
plan is that the additional requirement of the new Affero license will
state a reciprocal limitation.} That is to say, in such combinations,
the Affero requirement will apply only to the part that was brought into
the combination under the Affero license.  Those who receive such a
combination and do not wish to use code under the Affero requirement may
remove the Affero-covered portion of the combination.

Those who criticize the permission to link with code under the Affero
GPL should recognize that most other free software licenses also permit
such linking. 

\subsection{Other Changes in Section 7}\label{s7-other}

Removal of the 7b4 and 7b5 clauses permits a great simplification of
section 7.  It no longer needs to state rules for adding additional
requirements, or for how to interpret them.  In reducing the list of
allowed additional requirements to a set corresponding to 7b0--7b3 of
Draft 2, we have improved the wording of those four categories in minor

We have also removed the catchall additional requirement category of
7b6.  When we rewrote section 7 for Draft 2, we included this clause as
part of our effort to make section 7 a clearer and more comprehensive
explanation of the treatment of additional terms under the GPL.  In the
past we had occasionally applied a principle, similar to what was stated
in 7b6, in determining that no violation had resulted from the placement
of a superfluous additional condition.  However, we think 7b6
contributed to the view that section 7 was unnecessarily complex and
would produce unpredictable permutations of GPLv3.  The inclusion of 7b6
is not necessary, as it should already be clear that neither a
``precisely equivalent'' term, nor a denial of permission for something
not permitted by the GPL, is a ``further restriction'' in violation of
section 10.

We have removed the final paragraph of subsection 7b, which listed
several specific examples of prohibited additional requirements.  The
inclusion of this list was meant to be helpful, but it is not necessary,
since we already specify that only the enumerated categories of
supplementary conditions are permitted.  The list in the final paragraph
of 7b accurately presented our historical view regarding each such
requirement.  With at least some of the items in the list, however,
there may be particular circumstances in which categorical exclusion
will lead to an incorrect result.  We think it is better, then, to leave
this list out of the license text.

We have also clarified two clauses in section 7 that concern the
consequences of placement of a non-allowed additional requirement on a
work.  Draft 2 introduced a clause that authorizes recipients to remove
a non-allowed additional requirement that the work purports to
impose. The kind of case contemplated by this clause is that of a
program that explicitly purports to be licensed under the GPL along with
a supplementary restriction, such as a prohibition on commercial use.
The wording of the clause in Draft 2 could be read to cover other cases,
however, such as the inclusion of a portion originally licensed under
some other GPL-incompatible license.  We have therefore revised the
clause to make clear that it covers only those cases where all or part
of the Program ``purports to be governed by this License, supplemented
by a term that is a further restriction.''

Draft 3 also clarifies the clause explaining that a license document
that contains a GPL-incompatible requirement but permits relicensing or
conveying under the GPL will be treated as GPL-compatible only if the
incompatible requirement does not survive the relicensing or conveying.
Some readers found the wording of this clause in Draft 2 difficult to
understand.  In Draft 3 the clause is rewritten as a condition on the
right to add to a covered work material governed by such a license

Finally, we have eliminated the requirement that those who convey a
covered work maintain a central list of all the additional terms
applicable to a work.  Given that additional requirements now have
little import except for modification of the specific code to which they
apply, the central list seems unnecessary.\label{nolist}

\subsection{Statement on Apache License Compatibility}\label{apache}

We regret that we will not achieve compatibility of the Apache License,
Version 2.0, with GPLv3, despite what we had previously promised.

Our consideration of Apache/GPL license compatibility has focused on the
patent termination clause in the Apache license.  As we explained above
in \S\ \ref{7b5}, this clause is compatible with Draft 3 because it is
not a ``further restriction.''  However, we overlooked another provision
in the current Apache license that, on its face, is incompatible with
the GPL.  Under section 9 of the Apache license, downstream
redistributors must agree to indemnify upstream licensors under certain
conditions.\footnote{Apache License, version 2.0, section
9:\begin{quote}While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works
thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of
support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or
rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such
obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole
responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You
agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any
liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by
reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional
liability.\end{quote} }

Although we have studied section 9 of the Apache license at some length,
we fail to understand its precise purpose or effect. On one
interpretation, the indemnification clause should never have any
consequence, since, one might argue, the liability incurred by an
upstream licensor ``by reason of'' a downstream redistributor's
acceptance of warranty or liability ought always to be zero.  However,
we think this cannot have been the intent of the drafters of the Apache
license.  Terms in free software licenses must be assumed to have real
meaning. Because the GPL gives redistributors an unconditional right to
offer warranty protection,\footnote{See Draft 3, section 4, second
paragraph.} and because the terms of the Apache license appear to
survive incorporation of Apache-covered code into a GPL-covered work,
section 9 of the Apache license would give rise to an impermissible
further restriction on GPL rights.

We apologize to the Apache community for having previously overlooked
the significance of this issue.  We look forward to further discussions
with the Apache Foundation in the hope of achieving compatibility in the

\subsection{Statement on Artistic License Compatibility}

The Artistic License 2.0, as published by the Perl Foundation in 2006,
is, in our judgment, compatible both with GPLv2 and GPLv3.  The patent
termination cases contemplated by section 12 of the Artistic License are
a subset of the termination cases under the third paragraph of section
10 of Draft 3.  Moreover, even if the patent termination clause in the
Artistic License can be considered a ``further restriction'' on GPLv2
rights, the Artistic License permits relicensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3
through its clause 4(c)(ii).  As we read the Artistic License, such
relicensing would, by itself, extinguish any additional restrictions
that might have been placed upstream by the Artistic licensor.


We have made two substantive changes to section 8.  First, we have
clarified that patent rights granted under the GPL are among the rights
that a copyright holder may terminate under section 8.  Therefore, a
contributor who grants a patent license under the first paragraph of
section 11 may terminate that patent license, just as that contributor
may terminate copyright rights, to a downstream recipient who has
violated the license.  We think that this is a reasonable result, and
was already implicit in the wording of the termination provision in our
earlier drafts.  Moreover, this clarification should encourage patent
holders to make contributions to GPL-covered programs.  

Second, we have modified the termination procedure by providing a
limited opportunity to cure license violations, an improvement that was
requested by many different members of our community.  If a licensee has
committed a first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given
copyright holder, but the licensee cures the violation within 30 days
following receipt of notice of the violation, then any of the licensee's
GPL rights that have been terminated by the copyright holder are
``automatically reinstated.''  The addition of the cure opportunity
achieves a better balance than our earlier section 8 drafts between
facilitating enforcement of the license and protecting inadvertent
violators against unfair results.  


\part{Annotated Markup of Third Discussion Draft}





{\parindent 0in

Discussion Draft \sout{2} \textbf{3} of Version 3, \sout{27 July}
 \textbf{28 March} \sout{2006} \textbf{2007}




 Copyright \copyright\ \sout{2006} \textbf{2007} Free Software
 Foundation, Inc. \textbf{(} \\ 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.}



  \textbf{The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.}\footnote{This sentence and the
reference to ``other practical works'' in the following sentence make
clear that the GPL can be used for non-software works.\label{nonsoft}}

  The licenses for most software \textbf{and other practical works} are
designed to take away your freedom to share and change \sout{it}
\textbf{the works}.  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.  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, and that you know you can do these things.

  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.
Therefore, you have certain responsibilities 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 \sout{give} \textbf{pass on to} the
recipients \sout{all} the \textbf{same} \sout{rights} \textbf{freedoms}
that you \sout{have} \textbf{received}.\footnote{We improved the wording
of this sentence, which now describes the nature of the copyleft
requirement more clearly.}  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 rights.

  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 authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software.  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 \sout{original version} \textbf{previous
versions}.\footnote{``Previous'' is a clearer term in this context than
``original,''and there may be more than one previous version.}

  Some \sout{computers} \textbf{devices}\footnote{It is becoming
increasingly common for free software to be installed in embedded
computing devices that have technical restrictions on modification of
that software, thwarting the expectations of its copyright holders.
These are devices that typically are not thought as computers by their
users.}  are designed to deny users access to install or run modified
versions of the software inside them\textbf{, although the manufacturer
can do so}.  This is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the
GPL, which is to protect users' freedom to change the software
\textbf{where changes are possible}.\footnote{See section 6, fifth
paragraph (``But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any
third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the
User Product''); Part I, \S\ \ref{unmod}.}  \textbf{The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable.}  Therefore,
\sout{the GPL ensures that the software it covers will not be restricted
in this way} \textbf{we have designed this version of the GPL to
prohibit the practice for those products}.\footnote{See section 6
(requirement to provide Installation Information); Part I, \S\
\ref{techbar}.}  \textbf{If such problems arise substantially in other
domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in
future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.}

  Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in places where they do, we
wish to avoid the special danger that \sout{redistributors of}
\textbf{patents applied to} a free program \sout{will individually
obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program} \textbf{could make
it effectively} proprietary.\footnote{We revised the last part of this
sentence to reflect the more comprehensive approach to patent policy we
have taken in GPLv3.} To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents
cannot be used to render the program non-free.

  \textbf{The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.}\footnote{We decided to restore this sentence from
Draft 1, also present in GPLv2.}








  \textbf{``This License'' refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public
License.}\footnote{References to ``this License'' in the body of GPLv3
refer specifically to GPLv3 and not also to other versions of the

  \textbf{``Copyright'' also means copyright-like laws that apply to
other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.}\footnote{For
example, local law, such as 17 U.S.C.~\S\S \ 901 \textit{et seq.}~in the
United States, may provide copyright-like rights to owners of
semiconductor mask works.  If such an owner wishes to license the mask
work under the GPL, references in the GPL to ``copyright'' shall be
understood to refer to the analogous law.}

  \sout{In this License, each licensee is addressed as ``you,'' while
``the} \textbf{``The} Program'' refers to any \textbf{copyrightable}
work \sout{of authorship} licensed under this License.\footnote{Given
the broadened definition of ``copyright,'' the use of ``copyrightable
work'' is more appropriate than ``work of authorship.''} \textbf{Each
licensee is addressed as ``you.''  ``Licensees'' and ``recipients'' may
be individuals or organizations.}\footnote{It should be obvious that,
under local law, licensees, like licensors, may be organizations, such
as business entities, universities, government authorities, and
foundations.  We have obliged requests that we state this point

\sout{A ``modified'' work includes, without limitation, versions in
which mate\-rial has been translated or added. A work ``based on''another
work means any modified version, formation of which requires permission
under applica\-ble copyright law.} \textbf{To ``modify'' a work means to
copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring
copyright permission, other than the making of a verbatim copy.  The
resulting work is called a ``modified version'' of the earlier work or a
work ``based on'' the earlier work.}\footnote{We have made further
improvements to the important definitions of ``modify'' and ``based
on,'' providing a complete definition of ``modify'' that refers to basic
copyright rights, and using this definition of ``modify'' to define
``modified version of'' and ``work based on,'' now presented as
synonyms.}  A ``covered work'' means either the unmodified Program or a
work based on the Program.

\textbf{A ``contributor'' is a party who licenses under this License a
work on which the Program is based.  Such a work is called the party's
``contribution.''}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{contrib-def}.}

  To ``propagate'' a work means \sout{doing} \textbf{to do (or cause
others to do)}\footnote{The parenthetical expression explicitly
incorporates concepts of secondary copyright liability into the
definition of propagation.} anything with it that requires permission
under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer\sout{,} or making modifications that you do not share.
Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without
modification), making available to the public, and in some countries
other activities as well.  To ``convey'' a work means any kind of
propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies,
excluding sublicensing. \textbf{Mere interaction with a user through a
computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not
conveying.}\footnote{This sentence states what is already inherent in
the definition of ``convey.'' If no transfer of copyrightable material
occurs or is enabled, no conveying has taken place; therefore, network
interaction per se is not conveying.  On the other hand, if network
interaction results in the transfer of a copy, conveying has occurred.
This is not restricted to cases where software is obtained from a
network server for later use in some other context.  For example, if a
program run on a network server transmits code for execution in a web
browser, and that code is a modified version of a GPLv3-covered work,
then the server operator must comply with the requirements of section 5
of GPLv3.  We note also that there may be circumstances in which the
transmitted code and the server-side code are properly regarded as one
work under copyright law.}

  A party's ``essential patent claims'' in a work are all patent claims
\sout{that the party can give permission to practice} \textbf{owned or
controlled by the party}, whether already acquired or \sout{to be}
\textbf{hereafter} acquired, that would be infringed by \textbf{some
manner, permitted by this License, of} making, using, or selling the
work\textbf{, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as
a consequence of further modification of the work}.  \textbf{For
purposes of this definition, ``control'' includes the right to grant
sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this
License.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{epc}.}

\ordsec{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
\sout{version} \textbf{form}\footnote{``Version'' can be read to mean a
work based on another work, or a work on which another work is
based. (Cf. the definition of ``modified version'' in section 0.)
``Form'' is a more appropriate term here; it suggests one of a set of
possible representations of what is the same work for copyright
purposes, and it is more consistent with the usage of ``form'' elsewhere
in the license.} of a work.

  \textbf{A ``Standard Interface'' means an interface that either is an
official standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the
case of interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one
that is widely used among developers working in that
language.}\footnote{This definition replaces the reference to ``a widely
used or standard interface'' in the Draft 2 version of the System
Libraries definition. We were concerned that, at least under a highly
literal reading, the previous wording was not clearly applicable to
relatively unpopular programming languages that are not ``widely used''
in an absolute sense or that have library interfaces that are not
``standard'' in an official sense.}

   The ``System Libraries'' of an executable work include \sout{every
subunit such} \textbf{anything, other than the work as a whole,} that
(a) \sout{the identical subunit} is normally included \sout{as an
adjunct} in the distribution of \sout{either} a \sout{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}
\textbf{Major Component}, \textbf{but which is not part of that Major
Component,} and (b) \sout{the subunit (aside from possible incidental
extensions)} serves only to enable use of the work with that
\sout{system component or compiler or interpreter} \textbf{Major
Component}, or to implement a \sout{widely used or standard interface}
\textbf{Standard Interface} for which an implementation is available to
the public in source code form.  \textbf{A ``Major Component'', in this
context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and
so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable
work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code
interpreter used to run it.}\footnote{We have made some changes to the
wording of the System Libraries definition to make it simpler and
clearer, without changing its scope or policy.  The terms ``subunit''
and ``adjunct,'' which some readers found confusing, have been removed,
and a definition of ``Major Component'' has been factored out.  To
achieve what was accomplished by ``subunit'' and ``adjunct,'' the new
definition indicates that a work cannot be its own System Library, and
that a System Library cannot be a part of the Major Component with which
it is normally included.}

  The ``Corresponding Source'' for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, \sout{except its}
\textbf{including scripts to control those activities.  However, it does
not include the work's} System Libraries, \sout{and except} \textbf{or}
general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are
used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of
the work.  For example, Corresponding Source includes \sout{scripts used
to control those activities,} interface definition files associated with
\sout{the program} source files \textbf{for the work}, and the source
code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the
work is specifically designed to require, such as by \sout{complex}
\textbf{intimate} data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.\footnote{We have made minor
clarifications to this definition. Our restoration of ``intimate'' in
place of the Draft 2 substitution ``complex'' followed from further
public discussion of the Corresponding Source definition, in which it
became clear that ``complex'' in the context of data communication
suggested interpretations quite different from what we had intended.
``Intimate'' is the most useful term we know to describe the kind of
convoluted interaction and deep knowledge that suggests that one part is
specifically designed to require another part.}

\sout{The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or
authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions
from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such
that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of
circumstances.  (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.)  A
key need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies
the user already has 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{See section 6; Part
I, \S\ \ref{transfer}.}

  \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{This statement
remains true, but it is a detail that is not necessary to specify in the
Corresponding Source definition; we have removed it as part of our
efforts to simplify the definition.  We think that the underlying
observation is well-understood (that a GPL-licensed work, and therefore
the Corresponding Source of such a work, may include parts that are
formally licensed under some other license).}

  The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can
regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.

  \textbf{The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is
that same work.}\footnote{Because GPLv3 now has requirements referring
to Corresponding Source outside of the object code conveying
requirements of section 6 (see section 10, second paragraph, and section
11, third paragraph), it has become necessary to define what
``Corresponding Source'' means for a work in source code form.  Our
definition states that it is nothing more than that work itself. It is
important to note that section 11, paragraph 3 refers to a work that is
conveyed, and section 10, paragraph 2 refers to a kind of automatic
counterpart to conveying achieved as the result of a transaction.  The
permissions of section 5 imply that if one distributes source code, one
can never be required to provide more than what is distributed.  One
always has the right to modify a source code work by deleting any part
of it, and there can be no requirement that free software source code be
a whole functioning program.}

\ordsec{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 unmodified Program. The output from running
\sout{it} \textbf{a covered work}\footnote{The observation applies to
the output of any covered work, of course, not just the unmodified
Program.} is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work.  This License acknowledges your
rights of \sout{``}fair use\sout{''} or other equivalent, as provided by
copyright law.

  \sout{This License permits you to make and run privately modified
versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your
behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions, if
you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your
essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using, selling
or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in compliance with
this License.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{s2patretal}. Our
decision to remove this paragraph has no bearing on our understanding of
the right to have modifications made on one's behalf.}

  Propagation of covered works \sout{other than conveying} \textbf{that
you do not convey, and making modified versions of the Program that you
do not convey,} \sout{is} \textbf{are} permitted without
\sout{limitation} \textbf{conditions, so long as your license otherwise
remains in force}.\footnote{Having removed the patent retaliation clause
from this section, we now characterize the right of private (that is,
unconveyed) modification as coextensive with the right of private
propagation.  These rights differ from the right to run the unmodified
Program.  The GPL does not purport to control the right to run the
Program in any way (cf. section 9), while the right to make internal or
private propagation and modification are perpetual so long as one's
rights under the GPL have not been terminated under section
8.\label{perpet}} \textbf{Conveying is permitted under the conditions
stated below.}  Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it
unnecessary.  \sout{Conveying is permitted under the conditions stated

\ordsec{No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.}

\sout{Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission
is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works
the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this
License.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{3p1}.}

  No covered work \sout{constitutes} \textbf{shall be deemed} part of an
effective technological \sout{``protection''} measure under
\sout{section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code} \textbf{any
applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO
copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws
prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures}.\footnote{See
Part I, \S\ \ref{paracop}.}

  When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technical measures \sout{that include use of}
\textbf{to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising
rights under this License with respect to} the covered work, and you
disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as
a means of enforcing\textbf{, against the work's users, your or third
parties'} \sout{the} legal rights \sout{of third parties against the
work's users} \textbf{to forbid circumvention of technical
measures}.\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{paracop}.}

\bracketsec{\textbf{Conveying} Verbatim \sout{Copying}
 \textbf{Copies}.\protect\footnote{This section contains conditions on
 conveying, not on all propagation. See n.~\ref{perpet}.\label{nocopy}}}

  You may \sout{copy and} 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 \sout{license} notices \textbf{stating that this License
and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the
code;}\footnote{We have replaced the term ``license notices'' with a
more precise description of the notices that must be kept intact. As
section 7 makes clear, there is no requirement to keep intact notices of
additional permission.}  \sout{and} \textbf{keep intact all} notices of
the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients\sout{, along with
the Program,} a copy of this License \textbf{along with the Program}
\sout{and the central list (if any) required by section 7}.\footnote{We
have removed the central list requirement from section 7. See Part I,
\S\ \ref{nolist}.\label{nolist-n}} \sout{The recipients of these copies
will possess all the rights granted by this License (with any added
terms under section 7).}\footnote{This statement concerning the rights
received by a downstream licensee remains true, but it is not necessary
to state in a section describing the requirements of the upstream
licensee conveying an unmodified copy.}

  You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

\bracketsec{Conveying Modified Source Versions.}

  You may \sout{copy and}\footnote{See n.~\ref{nocopy}.} convey a work
based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the
Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4 above,
provided that you also meet all of these conditions:



The \sout{modified} work\footnote{For consistency in terminology in this
section, we simply refer to ``the work,'' which is understood here to
mean a modified version of the Program.\label{nomod}} must carry
prominent notices stating that you \sout{changed the work}
\textbf{modified it,} and \sout{the date of any change} \textbf{giving a
relevant date}.\footnote{We have improved the wording of this clause for



\textbf{The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
released under this License and any conditions added under section
7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to ``keep
intact all notices''.}\footnote{For a work that has been modified, this
clause is a necessary supplement to the requirement in section 4 to keep
intact existing licensing notices.}

\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\sout{\alph{enumi}} \stepcounter{enumi}\textbf{\alph{enumi}})}


You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to
anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This License \sout{must}
\textbf{will therefore}\footnote{The substituted phrasing here should
make clearer that the second sentence follows necessarily from the
first.} apply, unmodified except as permitted by section
7 \sout{below}, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless
of how they are packaged.  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 it.


If the \sout{modified}\footnote{See n.~\ref{nomod}.} 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 \sout{program} \textbf{work}\footnote{Using
``program'' here may be more confusing because of our use of ``Program''
as a term of art meaning the unmodified, received version of the work.}
(\sout{or that} \textbf{unless} you provide a warranty),\footnote{There
should be no requirement that the interactive interface disclose the
fact that a warranty is provided, which should already be known to the
user.} that \sout{users} \textbf{licensees}\footnote{See n.~\ref{org}.}
may convey the \sout{modified}\footnote{See n.~\ref{nomod}.} work under
this License, and how to view a copy of this License \sout{together with
the central list (if any) of other terms in accord with section
7}.\footnote{See n.~\ref{nolist-n}.}  Specifically, 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; otherwise,
the \sout{modified}\footnote{See n.~\ref{nomod}.} work must display this
information at startup.  However, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your
\sout{modified} work need not make them


\sout{To the extent that identifiable sections of 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 convey
them as separate works, not specifically for use in combination with the
Program.}\footnote{This paragraph was revised for clarity in Draft 2,
but some readers have continued to find it difficult to interpret.  We
therefore have decided to remove it. The paragraph is not strictly
necessary; it was intended to be helpful to licensees, stating a fact
that is inherent in other provisions of the GPL.}

  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 compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit.  Inclusion of a covered work in
an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of
the aggregate.

\bracketsec{Conveying Non-Source Forms.}

  You may \sout{copy and}\footnote{See n.~\ref{nocopy}.} convey a
covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5,
provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source
under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:




Convey the object code in\textbf{, or embodied in,}\footnote{We added
``embodied in'' particularly to make clear that options 6a and 6b
are appropriate for conveying of object code in the form of a silicon
chip, the implementation of which results ultimately from synthesis of
GPLv3-covered source code written in a hardware description language.}
a physical product (including a physical distribution medium),
accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical
medium customarily used for software interchange.


Convey the object code in\textbf{, or embodied 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, \textbf{either
(1)} to give \sout{any third party} \textbf{anyone who possesses the
object code}\footnote{This is a change in wording that places 6b(1)
in line with the general policy of section 6 to make possession of
object code normative in giving rise to rights to receive Corresponding
Source. As 6c indicates, a party who conveys object code
under 6b1 cannot limit the set of recipients who might make claims for
receipt of Corresponding Source, but they must actually be recipients
of object code and therefore GPLv3 licensees.} 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, for a price no more than your reasonable cost
of physically performing this conveying of source\sout{.}\textbf{, or



\sout{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 provide access to copy the
Corresponding Source from a network server at no
charge.\sout{]}\footnote{In Draft 3 we have adopted the bracketed option
6b1 that was introduced in Draft 2, and we have made it a sub-option of


\item Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
written offer to provide the Corresponding Source.  This alternative is
allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received
the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b
\sout{or 6b1}.

\item Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
\textbf{(gratis or for a charge)}, and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
\sout{extra} \textbf{further} charge.\footnote{We improved the wording
of this sentence to provide a clearer expression of the intended policy.
Under the 6d option, you may charge for the conveyed object code. Those
who pay to obtain the object code must be given equivalent and gratis
access to obtain the Corresponding Source.  (If you convey the object
code to them gratis, you must likewise make the Corresponding Source
available to them without charge.) Those who do not obtain the object
code from you, perhaps because they choose not to pay the fee you
charge, are outside the scope of the provision; you need not give them
any kind of access to the Corresponding Source.} You need not require
recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code.

\sout{[}If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the
Corresponding Source may be on a different server \textbf{(operated by
you or a third party)} that supports equivalent copying facilities,
\sout{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 object code saying where to find the
Corresponding Source.\sout{]} \textbf{Regardless of what server hosts
the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
available for as long as needed to satisfy these
requirements.}\footnote{The bracketed text providing guidance on the
network server option was generally considered useful by those who
commented on it, and we have therefore incorporated it into 6d. We have
made revisions to the wording of this text to clarify further that the
server hosting the Corresponding Source may be operated by a third
party, and that no explicit arrangement with that third party is
necessary. However, if the third party ceases to make the Corresponding
Source available as required, the party conveying the object code must
ensure that the Corresponding Source is made available in some other way
that complies with the requirements of 6d.}

\item Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission\textbf{,}
provided you \sout{know that, and}\footnote{Informing the peers is
clearly enough; what seemed to be an additional knowledge requirement
was superfluous wording.} inform other peers where\sout{,} the object
code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the
general public at no charge under subsection 6d.


  \sout{The Corresponding Source conveyed in accord with this section
must be in a format that is publicly documented, with an implementation
available to the public in source code form, and must require no special
password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.}\footnote{We moved
this requirement to the end of section 6, generalizing it to cover also
the provision of Installation Information.\label{format}}

  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.

\textbf{A ``User Product'' is either (1) a ``consumer product'', which
means any tangible personal property which is normally used for
personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or
sold for incorporation into a dwelling. [In cases of doubt concerning
whether an item is a ``consumer product'', the interpretation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. \S\ 2301 \textit{et seq.}, shall
provide the basis for interpretation, regardless of the choice of law
determination for this License as a whole.]}\footnote{See Part I, \S\

\textbf{``Installation Information'' for a User Product means any
methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required
to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User
Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The
information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the
modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely
because modification has been made.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\

\textbf{If you convey an object code work under this section in, or
with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying
occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use
of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for
a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is
characterized),\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{ephem}.} the Corresponding
Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the
Installation Information.\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{techbar}.} But
this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product
(for example, the work has been installed in ROM).}\footnote{See Part I,
\S\ \ref{unmod}.}

  \textbf{The requirement to provide Installation Information does not
include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty,
or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the
recipient.  Network access may be denied when the modification itself
materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or
violates the rules and protocols for communication across the
network.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{netacc}.}

\textbf{Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information
provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is
publicly documented, with an implementation available to the public in
source code form, and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.}\footnote{See n.~\ref{format}.}

\ordsec{Additional Terms.}

  \sout{You may have received the Program, or parts of it, under terms
that\linebreak supplement the terms of this License.  These additional
terms may include additional permissions, as provided in subsection 7a,
and additional\linebreak 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{See Part I, \S\



\subsection{\sout{Additional Permissions.}}

\textbf{``}Additional permissions\textbf{''} \textbf{are terms that
supplement the terms of this License by} \sout{make} \textbf{making}
exceptions from one or more of \sout{the requirements of this License}
\textbf{its conditions}.\footnote{This sentence incorporates some of the
wording of the first sentence of section 7 in Draft 2.} \sout{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{See
n.~\ref{license-doc}; Part I, \S\ \ref{s7-other}.}

\sout{Any additional} \textbf{Additional} permissions that are
applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were
included in this License, \sout{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 \sout{terms}

\subsection{\sout{Additional Requirements.}}

  \sout{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.
Only these kinds of additional requirements are allowed by this

\item \sout{terms that require preservation of specified reasonable
      legal notices or author attributions;}\footnote{See n.~\ref{7b0}.}

\item \sout{terms that require that the origin of the material they
      cover not be misrepresented, or that modified versions of that
      material be marked in specific reasonable ways as different from
      the original version;}\footnote{See n.~\ref{7b1}.} \sout{or}

\item \sout{warranty or liability disclaimers that differ from the
      disclaimers in this License;}\footnote{See n.~\ref{7b2}.}

\item \sout{terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes
      of specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that
      certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not be
      used for publicity purposes without express permission, other than
      in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark
      law;}\footnote{See n.~\ref{7b3}.} \sout{or}

\item \sout{terms that require, if a modified version of the material
      they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a
      computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the
      Corresponding Source of the work through the same network
      session;}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{7b4}. Cf.~Draft 3,
      section 13.} \sout{or}

\item \sout{terms that wholly or partially terminate, or allow
      termination of, permission for use of the material they cover, for
      a user who files a software patent lawsuit (that is, a lawsuit
      alleging that some software infringes a patent) 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;}\footnote{See Part I, \S\
      \ref{7b5}. Cf.~Draft 3, section 10, third paragraph.}

\item \sout{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{See Part I, \S\


\noindent \sout{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{See Part I, \S\ \ref{s7-other}.}

\subsection{\sout{Terms Added or Removed by You.}}

  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.  \textbf{(}\sout{Some additional} \textbf{Additional} permissions
\textbf{may be written to} require their own removal in certain cases
when you modify the work.\textbf{)} \textbf{You may place additional
permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you
have or can give appropriate copyright permission.}\footnote{This
relocates part of what was the first sentence of the second-to-last
paragraph of section 7 in Draft 2.\label{reloc-may-place-permis}}

\textbf{Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you may
supplement the terms of this License with terms effective under, or
drafted for compatibility with, local law:}\footnote{See Part I, \S\


\item \textbf{disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently
      from the terms of section 15 of this License;}\footnote{This
      corresponds to clause 7b2 of Draft 2.\label{7b2}} \textbf{or}

\item \textbf{requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal
      notices or author attributions in source or object code forms of
      material added by you to a covered work;}\footnote{This
      corresponds to clause 7b0 of Draft 2.\label{7b0}}\textbf{or}
\item \textbf{prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of material
      added by you to a covered work, or requiring that modified
      versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as
      different from the original version;}\footnote{This corresponds to
      clause 7b1 of Draft 2.\label{7b1}} \textbf{or}

\item \textbf{limiting the use for publicity purposes of specified names
      of licensors or authors, or of specified trade names, trademarks,
      or service marks, to the extent otherwise permitted by
      law.}\footnote{This corresponds to clause 7b3 of Draft


  \sout{Additional requirements are allowed only as stated in subsection
7b.}  \textbf{All other non-permissive additional terms are considered
``further restrictions'' within the meaning of section 10.}  If the
Program as you received it\textbf{, or any part of it,} purports to
\sout{impose any other additional requirement} \textbf{be governed by
this License, supplemented by a term that is a further restriction}, you
may remove that \sout{requirement} \textbf{term}.\footnote{See Part I,
\S\ \ref{s7-other}.}  \textbf{If a license document contains a further
restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you
may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license
document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such
relicensing or conveying.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\

\sout{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.}\footnote{See n.~\ref{reloc-may-place-permis}.} \sout{Adding
requirements not allowed by subsection 7b is a violation of this License
that may lead to termination of your rights under section
8.}\footnote{The point made by this sentence is now made in the first
sentence of the second-to-last paragraph of section 7 in Draft 3.}

  If you add terms to a covered work in accord\sout{ance} 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.


  You may not propagate or modify \sout{the Program} \textbf{a covered
work} except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
otherwise to propagate or modify \sout{the Program} \textbf{it} is
void.\footnote{The termination provision applies to works based on the
Program as well as to the Program.}  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 \sout{last} \textbf{most recent} violation.\footnote{``Most
recent'' is clearer than ``last.''}  Having put you on notice, the
copyright holder may\textbf{,} \sout{then terminate your license} at any
time\textbf{, terminate the rights (including any patent rights) that
the copyright holder has granted to you under this
License}.\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{termination}.}

\textbf{However, if this is your first violation of this License with
respect to a given copyright holder, and you cure the violation within
30 days following your receipt of the notice, then your license is
automatically reinstated.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{cure}.}

\sout{However,} \textbf{In the event that your rights are terminated
under this section,} 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.

\bracketsec{Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.}

  You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
a copy of the Program.  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.  However, nothing
\sout{else} \textbf{other than this License} grants you permission to
propagate or modify \sout{the Program or} any covered \sout{works}
\textbf{work}. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept
this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating \sout{the Program
(or any} \textbf{a} covered work\sout{)}, you indicate your acceptance
of this License to do so\sout{, and all its terms and
conditions}.\footnote{We made minor improvements to the wording of this

\bracketsec{Automatic Licensing of Downstream \sout{Users}
 \textbf{Recipients}.\protect\footnote{See n.~\ref{org}.}}

  Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License\sout{, including any
additional terms introduced through section 7}.\footnote{The reference
to additional terms is a correct detail, but it is unnecessary to call
it out, given that any variance from the terms of GPLv3 owing to the
presence of additional terms arises from the provisions of section 7
itself.}  \sout{You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights thus granted or affirmed, except in
the limited ways permitted by section 7.  Therefore, you may not impose
a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted
under this License.}\footnote{During the course of the GPLv3 discussion
process, the prohibition on imposition of further restrictions has
emerged as one of the most significant sources of specific policy and
authority under the license.  We think that its inclusion inside the
paragraph that sets forth the distinct automatic licensing provision
obscures its importance and limits its effect, and we have therefore
moved it to an independent paragraph at the end of section
} You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by
third parties \sout{to} \textbf{with} this License.

  \textbf{An ``entity transaction'' is a transaction transferring
control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or
subdividing an organization, or merging organizations.}  If propagation
\textbf{of a covered work} results from \sout{a transaction transferring
control of an organization} \textbf{an entity transaction}, each party
to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives
\sout{a license} \textbf{whatever licenses to the work the party's
predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph,
plus} \sout{and} a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of
the work from the \sout{party's} predecessor in interest.\footnote{This
provision, first introduced in Draft 2, establishes a default background
rule to reduce diligence costs for those who negotiate corporate control
transactions and similar agreements by automatically causing any
propagation resulting from such transactions to have the same effect as
though conveying had occurred under sections 4--6.  In Draft 3 we have
broadened the rule by defining a category of ``entity transactions''
that includes, for example, transfers of organizational assets.  We have
also clarified what the ``license'' is that is received by the successor
in interest.}

\textbf{You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of
the rights granted or affirmed under this License.  For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any
patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale,
or importing the Program (or the contribution of any
contributor).}\footnote{See n.~\ref{nfr} and Part I, \S\ \ref{pat-assert}.}


\sout{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.}

\textbf{Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide,
royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent
claims in its contribution, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import
and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contribution.}\footnote{See
Part I, \S\ \ref{contrib}.}

\textbf{For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a ``patent
license'' means a patent license, a covenant not to bring suit for
patent infringement, or any other express agreement or commitment,
however denominated, not to enforce a patent.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\

If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a
\sout{non-sublicensable} patent license \sout{that is not generally
available to all}, \textbf{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 \sout{(1) act to shield
downstream users against the possible patent infringement claims from
which your license protects you, 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} \textbf{(1) cause the Corresponding
Source to be so available, or (2) disclaim 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}. \textbf{``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.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\

\textbf{If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license providing freedom to use,
propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work to any
of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you
grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work
and works based on it.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{11par4}.}

\textbf{You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an
arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing
software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the
extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third
party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work
from you, a patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered
work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the
exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights
that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under
this License[, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent
license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007].}\footnote{See Part I, \S\

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.

\bracketsec{No Surrender of Others' Freedom.}

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 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 convey it at all.  For example, if you
\sout{accept a patent license that prohibits royalty-free conveying by
those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you}
\textbf{agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for
further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program},\footnote{
We have provided a new example of conduct activating this provision. It
more usefully illustrates the kind of direct obligation undertaken by
licensees that would be inconsistent with requirements under the GPL.
It is also more broadly illustrative in not being limited to patent
licenses; an obligation to collect royalties for downstream distribution
might arise under copyright licenses or contracts of various sorts.}
\sout{then} the only way you could satisfy both \sout{it} \textbf{those
terms} and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the

\section{\textbf{Use with the Affero General Public License.}}

\textbf{Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link any covered work with a work licensed under version 2
of the Affero General Public License, and to convey the resulting
combination.  The terms of this License will continue to apply to your
covered work but will not apply to the work with which it is linked,
which will remain governed by the Affero General Public
License.}\footnote{See Part I, \S\ \ref{agpl}.}

\delsec{[}{Geographical Limitations.}{}

 \sout{If the 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 limitation on conveying, excluding those
countries, so that 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 License.]}\footnote{Having gathered
comment on this provision for many months, we have decided to proceed
with its removal.  Although a principal reason for removing the
provision is the fact that it has rarely been used, we have also
encountered one current example of its use that we find troubling.}

\bracketsec{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 \sout{this} \textbf{the GNU
General Public} License\footnote{See n.~\ref{this}.} ``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 \sout{this} \textbf{the GNU General Public}
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software

  \textbf{If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide whether
future versions of the GNU General Public License shall apply, that
proxy's public statement of acceptance of any version is permanent
authorization for you to choose that version for the
Program.}\footnote{For free software projects that want to allow users
to be able to upgrade to later versions of the GPL, this new option
provides an alternative to specifying ``or any later version.''}

\delsec{}{Requesting Exceptions.}{}

  \sout{If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs 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.]}\footnote{
Having gathered comment on this provision since the release of Draft 2,
we have decided to proceed with its removal. We will make sure that what
is said here is stated in a FAQ entry or other explanatory materials.}

\sout{NO WARRANTY}\footnote{Having restored capitalization of the
warranty disclaimer, we see no reason to retain this capitalized heading
as well.}

\textbf{\arabic{v3section}}.[\arabic{v2section}\textbf{, \arabic{dv3section}}]}

\section{Disclaimer of Warranty \textbf{and Limitation of Liability}.\protect\footnote{See n.~\ref{guide}.}}

  \sout{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 war\-ranties 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.}


\delsec{}{Limitation of Liability.}{\protect\footnote{See n.~\ref{guide}.}}

  \sout{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 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 damages.}

SUCH DAMAGES.}\footnote{There is authority under United States law
suggesting that effective warranty disclaimers must be ``conspicuous,''
and that conspicuousness can be established by capitalization and is
absent when a disclaimer has the same typeface as the terms surrounding
it (see \textit{Stevenson v.~TRW, Inc.}, 987 F.2d 288, 296 (5th
Cir.~1993)).  We have reason to doubt that such authority would apply to
copyright licenses like the GPL. Nevertheless, pending further research,
we have cautiously decided to restore the capitalization of both the
warranty disclaimer and the liability limitation in Draft 3.}

  \textbf{If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability
provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their
terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely
approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection
with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability
accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.}\footnote{The
warranty and liability disclaimers of the GPL were drafted with
attention given to details of United States law, and we know of no good
way to internationalize these provisions. This paragraph provides a rule
of interpretation to guide courts in jurisdictions outside the United
States where it might not be possible for the disclaimers to be given
full legal effect.  (Section 7 provides additional aid to licensors by
authorizing them to supplement GPLv3 with differently-worded warranty
and liability disclaimers drafted for compatibility with local law.)

Because this paragraph applies to both the warranty and liability
disclaimers, we have included the disclaimers and the added paragraph in
a single section.\label{guide}


by brett last modified 2007-03-28 11:20

Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: