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

Original was better

I think my original version was better than current version (compare), because

• It (the current version) doesn't include the alternatives GPLv3 could have (1, 2 or 3).
• It doesn't include the question "which of them should happen".
• It seems to be so sure wich of alternatives happends, but doesn't provide explanation.

However I don't want to risk starting a revert war. I'll wait about a week before reverting it unless a better version is written or good arguments for preserving current version is said in talk page.

-- jjvt 14:22, 4 November 2006 (EST)

I thought you had answered your own question by noting that "EvilApp can be upgraded to gpl v3.1 and the restrictions can then be removed thus infridging EvilCorp's copyright." We can't reasonably expect to be able to violate copyright, so "yes": Software released under the GPL (no matter what version) with additional restrictions not allowed in the license must maintain those restrictions in license upgrades, and there's nothing the GPL's upgrade process can remedy (If there is, let us know).

The issue is not unique to the GPLv3 and its "Additional Terms" section, nor is mentioning the optional terms section useful for explaining the issues you're raising.

Software can, and has, been released under the GPLv2 with additional terms not in the spirit with the GPL. Software can have, and has had, the source code released under the GPL, but not fully compliant with its term (sometimes making it semi- or even non-free). The upgrade process in the GPL can't save us from these situations, nor be blamed for failing to fix them. The free software community can only lobby that such software become entirely free or entirely in spirt with the GPL. --ashawley 14:47, 5 November 2006 (EST)

But current draft says (in section 7c): "Additional requirements are allowed only as stated in subsection 7b. If the Program as you received it purports to impose any other additional requirement, you may remove that requirement.". Is this clause invalid? And your reasoning (if correct) only excludes option 3 in my original questions, 1 and 2 remain.

Anyway, I think question + answer(s) is better format than just answer.

-- jjvt 05:59, 7 November 2006 (EST)

Your post mentions "writing" GPL software, not modifying GPL software. Any requirements that are *added* to a downstream version of the program, would be subject to the section you've quoted.

We should clear up what your question is, and then come up with one answer (which may contain a few different possibilities and not one strict one), based on the current draft. --ashawley 09:37, 7 November 2006 (EST)

I'm sorry I was being unclear. When I wrote "...writes a version of some GPLv3+ licenced program...", I meant that EvilApp is a derivative work of some GPLv3+ (without additional restrictions) program.

-- jjvt 16:24, 7 November 2006 (EST)

I've returned this article mostly back to the original version, but made some clarifications.

-- jjvt 13:48, 17 November 2006 (EST)