GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue

[Hardy, Allan]

Interesting
>> These types of contradictory licenses have always been a problem in the Free Software community.

Isn't this a violation of the GPL, especially the spirit and intent?

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

Isn't the right approach to call these folks out for a GPL v2 violation?

As a second issue, let's say LinuxSampler is just under a nonGPL compatible license, what about the fact that they are building other pure GPL products and forcing them to work with a nonGPL compliant service?  For instance JSampler is GPL and is distributed and forced to use a nonGPL compliant service.  

Isn't there something wrong with distributing GPL products that only work with NonGPL Compatible products?

They are also putting anyone that builds and makes available solutions using these products in jeopardy of GPL violations as well.  In any case I would not approve the use of these components/products in my company and most assuredly not allow any LinuxSampler based applications to go outside the company.

Using GPL v3
For me its pretty straight line - they allow the use of GPL v3, all of the source files I sampled said so.  GPL v3 allows me to ignore the extra restriction they put in the README file.  So accept the license under v3, leave the restriction in the README but simply ignore it as GPL v3 allows.

So these guys might get mad?  So?  They have violated the GPL v2 itself, they will have a weak position.  Your leveraging v3 and it would be interesting if they went to the SFLC/FSF to get support.

Or, why not post your intent to use v3 and ignore the commercial caveat on their discussion forum and see what ensues?  


Allan

-----Original Message-----
From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Bradley M. Kuhn
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:41 AM
To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: Re: GPLv2 to v3 upgrade and "further restrictions" issue

While IANAL, I do believe Janez Pers gives very good advice on this
thread.  As one of GPLv3's drafters, I can tell you that the reason this
part of GPLv3 was added:

     If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a
     notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a
     term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

was precisely because many copyright holders over the years (sometimes
by accident and sometimes for nefarious purposes) have added
GPLv2-contradictory terms outside in a separate, accompanying license
notice.  (For example, adding things like: "No commercial distribution
permitted" right after a GPLv2 notice).  These types of contradictory
licenses have always been a problem in the Free Software community.
With GPLv3, you can just throw them away, but you can't take such
liberties under GPLv2.

Meanwhile, the GPLv2-or-later interaction here is a complicated
question, and before you try to exercise any of your
copyright-controlled freedoms with regard to the codebase in question
with the dubious extra restriction, you should consult legal counsel.

If you can't and/or don't want to talk to a lawyer, then simply
pretending the "or-later" isn't there and defaulting to the same
conservative stance you would take with GPLv2-only plus such a
restriction (i.e., that you have *no idea* what your license is and what
you're permitted to do) is probably the best you can do.
-- 

   -- bkuhn