[sldev] GPLv3 Draft 3 : Re-licensing vs. Sublicensing

[Dzonatas]

Jason Giglio wrote:
> Dzonatas wrote:
>> This is just a notice (not for discussion here) that the a new draft 
>> of the GPLv3, "Draft 3," is available.
>>
>> It appears there many concerns have been handled about being able to 
>> re-license code under the GPL with the new draft. It appears that one 
>> does not need to grant copyright permission as one would with the 
>> GPLv2 in order to re-license. One only has to set up the terms for 
>> the ability to sublicense code. Also, it makes it so that other works 
>> that usually aren't GPL-compatible (under GPLv2) to be compatible, 
>> but it depends on that other work's license terms.
>
> Are you talking about copyrights, or patents?  Because the patent 
> changes in the GPL3 have very little to do with copyright.  Your bug 
> is also about patents.
>
> You really need to stop mixing these two issues, it is only going to 
> cause confusion.
>
It seemed pretty simple. The Draft 2 version stated in a way that 
upstream copyright holders had to protect downstream licensees from 
patent infringements. In Draft 3, that piece was stricken. There is now 
an overall clarification of how a covered work is conveyed and when one 
conveys such work that one must abide by the terms of the license to 
disclaim patent infringement or likewise.
> The new draft of the GPLv3 only has an exception for the Affero GPL. 
> Section 7b that would have made it compatible with more licenses was 
> stricken.
>
Such section was taken out and replaced with terms for sublicenses and 
default re-license ability.  It makes it more clear about what 
constitutes separate works.
> In other words, it changes the situation very little.
It actually is a very favorable change for copyright holders. It brings 
in a bit of required attribution in a style of GFDL instead of 
"Copyright (c) 2007 by X, Y, Z, U, N, M, E, " etc...

We'll update the wiki when we know more about where the lines have been 
re-drawn from d2 to d3.


=)