6 ms·

If you own the covered work, then in some jurisdictions, you have the right to license it under the GPL plus additional restrictions (that cannot be removed und

If you own the covered work, then in some jurisdictions, you have the right to license it under the GPL plus additional restrictions (that cannot be removed under the 'Additional Terms' clause of the GPL). This was previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 It is more complicated in this scenario where GPL-licensed code written by other people is involved.

bombcar 3y ago
Or where it's mixed; where some may be GPL-only but yours can't be used unless you agree to another clause, etc. However, it's pretty obvious the intent whatever the wording and machinations may be.
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  Where it is mixed, the derivative work would usually be expected to be made available under the terms of the GPL, because the copyright held by the creators of the original work includes the right to create and distribute derivative works. The licensor of the derivative work can refuse to give you a licence unless you agree to some other terms (e.g., money, and/or the right to terminate the business relationship if you exercise your GPL rights), but those terms cannot directly prevent you from exercising your GPL rights, or the licensor would be in violation of the GPL.
boomlinde 3y ago
> If you own the covered work, then in some jurisdictions, you have the right to license it under the GPL plus additional restrictions Then that license is not GPL. As a rights holder you may license or not license your work however you want. Is there a jurisdiction where this is not the case?
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  In the specific case of using the GPL as a part of your licence, a court could potentially rule that the additional restrictions are removable under the 'Additional Terms' clause. The licensor could have created a derivative licence with that clause removed (as well as renaming the licence and removing the preamble, as required by the FSF when creating derivative licences based on the GPL). If they did not, the licensee might have grounds to believe that additional terms are removable. In the case cited in the earlier link, the court disagreed, but another court might conceivably have a different opinion.
  - boomlinde 3y ago
    Ah, I see. I replied under the assumption that by "GPL plus additional terms" you meant "GPL plus additional terms minus the clause that expressly forbids additional terms", but I can see how paradoxical licensing terms would create this ambiguity.

bombcar 3y ago

Or where it's mixed; where some may be GPL-only but yours can't be used unless you agree to another clause, etc. However, it's pretty obvious the intent whatever the wording and machinations may be.

joshuaissac 3y ago
Where it is mixed, the derivative work would usually be expected to be made available under the terms of the GPL, because the copyright held by the creators of the original work includes the right to create and distribute derivative works. The licensor of the derivative work can refuse to give you a licence unless you agree to some other terms (e.g., money, and/or the right to terminate the business relationship if you exercise your GPL rights), but those terms cannot directly prevent you from exercising your GPL rights, or the licensor would be in violation of the GPL.

boomlinde 3y ago

> If you own the covered work, then in some jurisdictions, you have the right to license it under the GPL plus additional restrictions Then that license is not GPL. As a rights holder you may license or not license your work however you want. Is there a jurisdiction where this is not the case?

joshuaissac 3y ago
In the specific case of using the GPL as a part of your licence, a court could potentially rule that the additional restrictions are removable under the 'Additional Terms' clause. The licensor could have created a derivative licence with that clause removed (as well as renaming the licence and removing the preamble, as required by the FSF when creating derivative licences based on the GPL). If they did not, the licensee might have grounds to believe that additional terms are removable. In the case cited in the earlier link, the court disagreed, but another court might conceivably have a different opinion.
- boomlinde 3y ago
  Ah, I see. I replied under the assumption that by "GPL plus additional terms" you meant "GPL plus additional terms minus the clause that expressly forbids additional terms", but I can see how paradoxical licensing terms would create this ambiguity.