This website is an archive. It was used for drafting and public consultation on GPLv3 and version 3 of other GNU licenses which were published in 2007. For up to date information, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. For more information about this archive, see https://www.fsf.org/licensing/gplv3-archive

From GPLv3 Wiki

Revision as of 07:59, 15 October 2006 jjvt (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Current revision jjvt (Talk | contribs) Returned to original version + clarifications. See talk page.
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Consider this scenario:		Consider this scenario:
-	EvilCorp finds out a way to exploit additional restrictions (section 7) and writes a version of some GPLv3+ licenced program that is agaist the spirit of gpl (let's call it EvilApp). Fsf writes gpl v3.1 that don't allow such restriction.	+	GoodApp is licenced GPLv3+ (ie. "GPL version 3 or any later") without additional requrements (section 7b). Suppose EvilCorp finds a loophole in GPL and writes a version of GoodApp that has additional restrictions that are allowed in section 7b (maybe because of some odd court decision etc.) but violates the spirit of GPL. Let's call EvilCorp's version of GoodApp EvilApp. Fsf responds by writing and publishing GPL version 3.1 that don't allow such restriction.
	Which of the following happends according to current GPLv3 draft? Which of them should happend?		Which of the following happends according to current GPLv3 draft? Which of them should happend?
-	# EvilApp cannot be upgraded to gpl v3.1 despite it is licenced "gpl 3 or any later".	+	# EvilApp cannot be upgraded to GPLv3.1 despite it is licenced "GPL version 3 or any later".
-	# EvilApp can be upgraded to gpl v3.1, but the restrictions can't be taken out, even when they contradict gpl v3.1.	+	# EvilApp can be upgraded to GPLv3.1, but the restrictions can't be taken out, even when they contradict GPLv3.1.
-	# EvilApp can be upgraded to gpl v3.1 and the restrictions can then be removed thus infridging EvilCorp's copyright.	+	# EvilApp can be upgraded to GPLv3.1 and the restrictions can then be removed thus infridging EvilCorp's copyright.

---

Current revision

Consider this scenario:

GoodApp is licenced GPLv3+ (ie. "GPL version 3 or any later") without additional requrements (section 7b). Suppose EvilCorp finds a loophole in GPL and writes a version of GoodApp that has additional restrictions that are allowed in section 7b (maybe because of some odd court decision etc.) but violates the spirit of GPL. Let's call EvilCorp's version of GoodApp EvilApp. Fsf responds by writing and publishing GPL version 3.1 that don't allow such restriction.

Which of the following happends according to current GPLv3 draft? Which of them should happend?

1. EvilApp cannot be upgraded to GPLv3.1 despite it is licenced "GPL version 3 or any later".
2. EvilApp can be upgraded to GPLv3.1, but the restrictions can't be taken out, even when they contradict GPLv3.1.
3. EvilApp can be upgraded to GPLv3.1 and the restrictions can then be removed thus infridging EvilCorp's copyright.