Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- "Comment 3117: Unenforceable on people procuring conveyancing"

[Alexander Terekhov]

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=<%%20gplv3-draft-1%20%>&id=3117

-------
Comment 3117: Unenforceable on people procuring conveyancing. 

Regarding the text: If, pursuant to or in connection with a single
transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring
conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license providing
freedom to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the
covered
In section: gpl3.licensingpatents.p2b.s1
Submitted by: jeffveit on 2007-05-18 at 16:49 EDT
0 agree: 
noted by jeffveit on 2007-05-18 at 16:49 EDT: 

If I give my friend a some money for a copy of GPL3 licenced software,
to give to a friend, then I've procured conveyance of a covered work,
but I've not agreed to the licence. If you could include this sort of
clause in in a licence and it were enforceable, you'd see a lot of
clauses requiring people to give up their firstborn children, their
goods and chattels. And that's absurd.

What you could do is require anyone who conveys on the procurement of
another to have that other party agree to be bound by the terms of the
licence too. Without that agreement, the conveyer should have no license
to convey. In this way, if my friend asks me to distribute software, I'd
only be allowed to do so under the GPL3 if they had agreed to be bound
by the license too. And in being bound, they'd be agreeing that they
license patents covering software distributed under the licence. To some
extent this opens up a possible attack on distributed software:Where is
the agreement of the procurer to be found? Jeff 

collapse children

Links: 

Current Committees: 
-------

He he.

regards,
alexander.