Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

[Russ Allbery]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> * Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 03:21:43AM CEST:

>> Is there something that defines "propagate" to include creation and
>> distribution of derivative works?
>
> Yes, "propagate" is defined in the GPLv3 text in `0. Definitions.':
>
>     To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
>   permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
>   infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
>   computer or modifying a private copy.  Propagation includes copying,
>   distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
>   public, and in some countries other activities as well.
>
> IIRC the move away from the term "derivative work" was taken as a
> step to make the language less dependent on U.S. law.

Ah!  Sorry.  I should have looked.

Hm, I think the point I'm still unclear on, given that language, is how
that accomplishes this:

> It is supposed to be possible that configure scripts are covered under
> some other license.

since nothing in the definition of propagate seems to permit relicensing
of the work explicitly and I'm not sure relicensing would make one
liable for infringement and hence fall into the general definition.

It seems like what one is left with under this exception is a configure
script that's covered by the GPLv3 with an exception that lets you
propagate it, but would therefore still require preservation of the
GPLv3 license and copyright.  But I'm on very murky ground here and am
not a lawyer; if a lawyer says I'm misreading it, I'm happy with that
answer.

> However, the input files from the Autoconf package still fall under
> the GPL.  Now, one can probably do the following: change Autoconf a
> little, and then use the tracing interface to let the input files from
> the Autoconf package appear as output, likely in a reusable form, or
> even identical to the input.  So just allowing all kinds of output to
> be all-permissive could in effect subvert the GPL on the input files.

Yeah, this part makes sense.

> The technical answer to this is to use AC_COPYRIGHT: it emits its
> argument as shell comment near the top of the configure script, after
> the all-permissive Autoconf boiler.  Likewise, the text appears in
> `configure --version' output after the Autoconf statement.

Oh, I didn't realize that was already there.  Thank you!

-- 
Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>