[plug] no more lawsuits disclaimer idea.

[Shayne O'Neill]

I'm not so sure. The GPL does infact put a few prohibitions in regards to
patent stuff, so my theory here would be that its just extending the idea
into copyright/tradesecret stuff and also mutual self defence of gpl
projects.

However, If a GPL v3 came out it would be able to have such a clause. As
for debian free software guidelines, I guess those guys'd just have to
adapt.

But oh man would it kill dead a few nasty lawsuits (assuming the theory
held).

--
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do
it, that's trustworthiness."
-- George Bush on CNN online chat, Aug.30, 2000
RIAA Copyright notice trap: http://guild.murdoch.edu.au/~shayne/

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Cameron Patrick wrote:

> Shayne O'Neill wrote:
>
> > I wonder if people could insert a line like this;-
> >
> > "By distributing this product, you have agreed any pending legal suits you
> > have against the distribution or use of GPL'ed products against the
> > author or any third party are automatically resolved in the author or the
> > third parties favor. This does not apply to lawsuits designed to enforce
> > the GPL, but does apply to lawsuits to enforce other copyrights or
> > patents."
> >
> > ..in there free software licences for stuff they wrote. Would it violate
> > there GPL?
>
> I think that would be GPL-incompatible.  Clause 6 of the GPL states:
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein."  There is nothing stopping you
> from distributing your own software under "GPL + Shayne's paragraph"
> (so long as you didn't incorporate any GPL-licensed code into it), but
> to re-license, e.g. Linux this way would be impractical as all of the
> copyright holders would have to give their permission.
>
> This phrasing would also be considered non-free according to the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>
> > Would the "FSF can upgrade your licence clause to V3" clause be
> > invoked to add this line in current GPL products by the FSF.
>
> Could be, but there are two snags:
>
> 1) The usual bumph states -
>
>         This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>         it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>         the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
>         any later version.
>
>    so people would still have the option of taking the original
>    (version 2) licence.
>
> 2) Some software, (such as the Linux kernel) doesn't have the "any
>    later version" phrasing, it's intentionally licensed under version
>    2 only.
>
> Cameron.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au
>