4 ms·

The copyright holder isn't bound by their own license though. Although, if there are many contributors to the project, there may not be a clear copyright holde

The copyright holder isn't bound by their own license though. Although, if there are many contributors to the project, there may not be a clear copyright holder.

hotsalad 7mo ago
Wouldn't they still need to switch to a license outside the GPL family in order to add those restrictions, even if they're the sole copyright holder? Otherwise it seems that upon receiving a copy of the software, the user can just remove the additional restrictions, as specified by Section 7.
kelnos 7mo ago
Of course, the copyright holder can license as they wish. But the quoted terms of the GPL are in the license that the author is distributing with the software, so we can also follow the terms of the GPL and remove the extra restriction they just added. The author is trying to do contradictory things: add extra restrictions, but release under the terms of a license that allow us to remove those extra restrictions. If they want to add that restriction, they cannot release it under the GPL; they need to pick another license, or modify the GPL to their liking and then call it something else (assuming the copyright terms of the GPL allow you to make a derived work of the license itself).
- Buttons840 7mo ago
  If I have a license that says "you may use this, you may not use this", then can people use it? Honest question, I don't know how self-contradictory licenses work. Do people get to pick and choose what they want to follow, or does the whole thing become invalid?
  - direwolf20 7mo ago
    If you have a license that says "You may not use this. The preceding sentence is null and void. You may use this." then you may use it. You may also use software without a license, if you don't get caught.
- c3d 7mo ago
  No, I am not ignoring the GPLv3. This is not a license, but a legal notice that residents of these states, by applying the GPL and freely running software that may violate local laws, are the ones that may have to deal with the consequences. I clarified in a recently updated version of the text, and I refer the readers to this discussion. https://github.com/c3d/db48x/blob/dev/LEGAL-NOTICE.md https://github.com/c3d/db48x/blob/dev/LEGAL-NOTICE.md

The copyright holder isn't bound by their own license though. Although, if there are many contributors to the project, there may not be a clear copyright holder.

hotsalad 7mo ago

Wouldn't they still need to switch to a license outside the GPL family in order to add those restrictions, even if they're the sole copyright holder? Otherwise it seems that upon receiving a copy of the software, the user can just remove the additional restrictions, as specified by Section 7.

kelnos 7mo ago

Of course, the copyright holder can license as they wish. But the quoted terms of the GPL are in the license that the author is distributing with the software, so we can also follow the terms of the GPL and remove the extra restriction they just added. The author is trying to do contradictory things: add extra restrictions, but release under the terms of a license that allow us to remove those extra restrictions. If they want to add that restriction, they cannot release it under the GPL; they need to pick another license, or modify the GPL to their liking and then call it something else (assuming the copyright terms of the GPL allow you to make a derived work of the license itself).

Buttons840 7mo ago
If I have a license that says "you may use this, you may not use this", then can people use it? Honest question, I don't know how self-contradictory licenses work. Do people get to pick and choose what they want to follow, or does the whole thing become invalid?
- direwolf20 7mo ago
  If you have a license that says "You may not use this. The preceding sentence is null and void. You may use this." then you may use it. You may also use software without a license, if you don't get caught.
c3d 7mo ago
No, I am not ignoring the GPLv3. This is not a license, but a legal notice that residents of these states, by applying the GPL and freely running software that may violate local laws, are the ones that may have to deal with the consequences. I clarified in a recently updated version of the text, and I refer the readers to this discussion. https://github.com/c3d/db48x/blob/dev/LEGAL-NOTICE.md https://github.com/c3d/db48x/blob/dev/LEGAL-NOTICE.md