| |||||||||||||
On the 'death penalty' thingOn the 'death penalty' thingPosted Feb 2, 2012 4:18 UTC (Thu) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)In reply to: On the 'death penalty' thing by mjg59 Parent article: A tempest in a toybox
Actually the GPL3 wording, with the FSF's reasons for the wording, support the opposite: The GPL3 wording is there in order to clarify in a precise way what was always intended in the GPL2. There was a lack of clarity in the GPL2 which led to additional explanations in the GPL3.
(Log in to post comments)
On the 'death penalty' thing Posted Feb 2, 2012 14:05 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
From the rationale for the first draft of GPLv3 (http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html#SECTIO...)
"GPLv2 provided for automatic termination of the rights of a person who copied, modified, sublicensed, or distributed a work in violation of the license. Automatic termination can be too harsh for those who have committed an inadvertent violation, particularly in cases involving distribution of large collections of software having numerous copyright holders. A violator who resumes compliance with GPLv2 would need to obtain forgiveness from all copyright holders, but even to contact them all might be impossible"
GPLv3 doesn't clarify the termination clause. It materially changes it.
|
|||||||||||||