Any examples of additional terms via GPLv3?

[lwc]

As you may know, GPLv3 added something called Additional Terms (section 7), but they treat it like a secret undocumented feature. I'd therefore like to ask - do you know any programs out there that actually take advantage of the permission to dictate certain additional terms to the standard GPLv3?

Being that it's undocumented in the GNU site, I was wondering what's the "official" way to write these terms, and how tight are they allowed to be.

Thanks!

[MfA]

Don't know of any project, but I do want to note that only additional permissions are pretty much free form ... additional limiting terms on copying are only allowed if they comply with the list in the license :
* a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
* b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
* c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
* d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
* e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
* f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.


Any limiting term beyond that is null and void if you claim the code is covered by the GPL.

It seems mostly designed for compatibility with BSD variants.

[lwc]

I especially wonder about b). Is it "reasonable" to ask for credit in web apps' footers ("powered by X")?

Also, how do a)-f) even work with "when you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy"?

[MfA]

That list I quoted concerns non-permissive additional terms, not permissions. You can remove additional permissions, not conforming non-permissive additional terms.

As for what you want, I don't think that flies ... the material is the source code, not the final user interface (HTML blurs the lines a bit, but I'd say just commenting out the footer is still preserving it in the material). You can however demand author contribution in the appropriate legal notices which is almost as good, it just doesn't allow you to specify how the attribution is formatted (it can be a footer, a menu item, whatever as long as it's prominent).

PS. IANAL of course.

PPS. a footnote with a friendly request to maintain formatting of the notice while not legally binding should be enough to cause it to be followed most of the time.

[lwc]

You can remove additional permissions, not conforming non-permissive additional terms.
I didn't really understand. What do you mean? Can you give an example?

it just doesn't allow you to specify how the attribution is formatted.
That's the question. It seems you agree "reasonable" means somewhere online (though not necessarily a footer) and not just hidden in the source code. But GPLv3 uses the term "reasonable" without defining it.

PS. IANAL of course.
Of course. To anyone reading this, we're just sharing opinions, not claiming to give anyone any legal advice.

PPS. a footnote with a friendly request to maintain formatting of the notice while not legally binding should be enough.
Yes, but I thought about the idea of selling a program in exchange for taking off the copyright.

[MfA]

I didn't really understand. What do you mean? Can you give an example?
Well, you can add additional license terms which say "you can also treat this source code as if it was in the public domain where applicable". This is an additional permission. I can distribute the code while removing that additional permission.

An extra license term which requires attribution in the "Appropriate Legal Notices" is not a permission, it's a "non-permissive additional term" ... those can't be removed (as long as they fall under the list).
That's the question. It seems you agree "reasonable" means somewhere online (though not necessarily a footer) and not just hidden in the source code. But GPLv3 uses the term "reasonable" without defining it.
No you misunderstand, this is not about what's reasonable ... it's about what constitutes the material. IMO the material is the source code. For the UI however you have to rely on adding attributions to the "Appropriate Legal Notices".

The way "Appropriate Legal Notices" have to be displayed has nothing to do with what's reasonable ... that's set down in the actual license.

An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices

So it always has to be prominently shown, but the formatting can be varied.

[lwc]

d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices
I don't fully understand the other half of this rule though:
however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.

[MfA]

The "Program" is the original program, the "work" is the modified program ... so if the original author included interfaces without "Appropriate Legal Notices" someone else can reuse those without adding them.

As long as you remember to put them on all interfaces they have to be maintained (and of course added to all new interfaces).

[lwc]

Thanks for your answers! You're making it much clearer.

As long as you remember to put them on all interfaces they have to be maintained (and of course added to all new interfaces).
Ah, kind of like my AGPLv1 vs. AGPLv3 question (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154062).
So let's say my interfaces just have my name. Can I allow to buy out of item b)?

[MfA]

You can put as many different licenses on your own code as you want ... as long as it's GPL though they can redistribute it under the exact same terms they got it. So selling it to a customer under GPL but without requiring Appropriate Legal Notices allows them to grant that same right to anyone they please, which kinda defeats the point.

The more common dual license is GPL and a normal commercial license.

[lwc]

But wait a minute, attribution is an opt-in term. Requiring payment to remove it is equal to not demand attribution in the first place. For example, if I have a footer with ny name, requiring payment to remove it is the same as not having it in the first place.

I keep mentioning footers because have you ever seen a web app that has any Appropriate Legal Notices online, except a footer with "powered by X"? And I don't mean CC notices because they only cover the content and not the web app itself.

[MfA]

But wait a minute, attribution is an opt-in term. Requiring payment to remove it is equal to not demand attribution in the first place. For example, if I have a footer with ny name, requiring payment to remove it is the same as not having it in the first place.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Two things you can do with GPLv3 :

- ask for attribution in the Appropriate Legal Notices
- not ask for attribution in the Appropriate Legal Notices

Either way they can redistribute it exactly as they got it, rather fundamental to the GPL, with whichever of the two options you gave it to them. You can't ask for payment in the license (that's definitely not on the list).

What people usually do is hand out the code under GPL (in your case with an extra license term demanding attribution in the Appropriate Legal Notices) and make a separate offer to sell the software under a normal commercial license (which in your case would not have attribution demands, but also no redistribution rights for the source code ... ie. a normal commercial license).

Of course if you can only use GPL because you extensively use other GPL code then you are shit out of luck, every right you give to a recipient of your code under the GPL (including the right to use it without Appropriate Legal Notices) they can pass on to others ... as I said, fundamental to the GPL.

As for no one using Appropriate Legal Notices on web software, GPLv3 is still quite rare.

[lwc]

You can't ask for payment in the license (that's definitely not on the list).
What about "attribution must be provided unless a written permission allows otherwise"?

ie. a normal commercial license.
Is there a standard one (like GPL is for free stuff)?

if...you extensively use other GPL code then you are shit out of luck
What about LGPL? If I use, say, one LGPL file in a commercial program, does it mean I must have a download link called "source" that just has 1 LGPL file + LGPL license?

As for no one using Appropriate Legal Notices on web software, GPLv3 is still quite rare.
GPLv2 also mentions interactice copyright notices.

[MfA]

What about "attribution must be provided unless a written permission allows otherwise"?
I don't think it flies (not on the list either).
What about LGPL? If I use, say, one LGPL file in a commercial program, does it mean I must have a download link called "source" that just has 1 LGPL file + LGPL license?
That's what the LGPL is for yes.
GPLv2 also mentions interactice copyright notices.
A lot of software is released by the original author with interfaces which do not have copyright notices, so anyone adapting it can simply use/adapt those and not be forced to introduce them. A quick google found this :
http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4947

So it's not without precedent (Dave Turner seems to agree that the formatting can be changed).

I don't know of any common commercial software license boilerplates, sorry. A google for software license template (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=software+license+template&start=0&sa=N) finds some relatively cheap templates though.