Validity of a GPL exception [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

开发者_如何学JAVA

This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

Closed 7 years ago.

Improve this question

I have been contracted to modifying software released under the GPL. The small research company that I am consulting for will be submitting analysis of the output of the modified software as part of a response to a RFP by the US Department of Defense. But there's a catch.

The source directory contains a file called "COPYRIGHT" (along with your standard GPL.txt) that contains the follow text:

"This program is free software. Permission is hereby granted to use, redistribute and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation with the sole EXCEPTION that the software and all parts of it may NEVER BE USED FOR ANY MILITARY PURPOSE, whether it be research or not, commercial or otherwise. You may apply either version 2 of the GPL, or (at your option) any later version."

This restriction is clearly incompatible with of section 6 of the GPL (...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein...)

So, it appears they have violated the GPL.

Can I consider their restriction of my GPL rights void?

---

Section 6 doesn’t apply here: it is talking to the user/distributor of the code + license (the licensee), not to the one who created the code and granted the license:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

and

Each licensee is addressed as "you".

(emphasis mine.)

I don’t know whether such a clause has any validity but I don’t see why copyright owners couldn’t take an existing license and add their own clauses to it. Of course, that’s no longer a GPL, but it is still a license, with restrictions that go further than those in the GPL.

---

Two interesting bits from GNU's FAQ:

I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this?

No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?

You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

…

They have modified the GPL in a way that isn't allowed.

From the GPL:

7. Additional Terms.

"Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.

…

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. 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.

…

Seems like you're allowed to remove that part of the license, but there's no way around asking a lawyer.

---

If the license is void, as some people are saying, you don't have any right to use the code at all. A license gives you rights you would not have otherwise. It's the author's code; you use it as the author dictates, or not at all.

I'd say the code is available under a not-quite-FOSS license which is derived from the GPL. It's not GPL code.

Whether the option to apply any later version of the GPL overrides this restriction is a nice question, which you'd need a lawyer to answer. I do think, though, that using this code for military purposes, even if legal, would be somewhat discourteous.

---

The author can (probably) grant whichever rights they want. However, "GPL with restrictions" is not GPL, so if they link to any GPL code, their code would need to be licensed under both "GPL with restrictions" and GPL, so you can safely use the GPL license. However, if they do not do anything that requires the code to be released under the GPL, they can probably attach any reasonable license agreement they want to it.