3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoIn 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 agoAh, 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.