Hi. I'm really grateful for the massive effort you must have put in to create the answer on my GPLv3 question.

Unfortunately, just as with other answers and comment threads, I'm left with more questions than answers.

In your latest edit, you added an interpretation of 5-b)

My answer is rather explicit AFAICS. There is not much more that can be said.

Perhaps it's just my inability to see how you came to the conclusions you did. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, and my next stop needs to be one of the English language sites.

I just don't see how you reached your interpretation of 5-b

> per 5-b) I shall update (or create) notices to state that this code is under the GPL. If program(s) is missing a copyright of the original author, I should add a copyright statement. If program(s) is missing a GPL notice, I should add a GPL notice. For this I can use the provided examples. For my changes I can also add my own copyright statement. I shall not/never remove anyone else copyright or notice.

Where do you get "update" from? Where do you get "add copyright statement" from?

"b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”."

So if the work DID NOT carry such notices, I need to create or add them.

And by "such notices" you mean exactly what?

For the copyright, if I make significant changes, I own the copyright for these. I therefore signify this by adding my copyright.

such notice is exactly what is listed at the bottom of the GPL.

I am not sure what is your concern and what you are trying to do, but things are rather simple and clear IMHO.

I thought the notices at the bottom of the license were optional.

They are examples.

Good practices.

And you suggest that these are the notices that 5-b) talks about.

the net net: I cannot remove other copyrights and notices, I must add GPL notices and notices if they were missing and I must notify others of my changes.

Where does it say you can't remove other copyrights notices?

5-b talks about "prominent notices"

removing copyright notices immediately voids your GPL license :D

Dude, I am considered by many as an expert on FLOSS licensing :P

Stop trying to do something there that cannot be done

You need to “keep intact all notices”, this includes copyright.

The requirement to keep intact all notices is in section 4, for unmodified copies, is it not?

removing any copyright from any code (GPL or any other license I know of and I know many) is an absolute no-no and means you are no longer licensed.

section 5 is additive to section5

Stop trying to get around the GPL, your are wasting your time :P

lol

You will only get you into troubles

I don't actually want to get around it, I just want to, with confidence, say that GPLv3 requires attribution of previous authors

it does, unambigusouly

I would be convinced if section 5 was additive to section 4 btw

read the license :)

Yeah, I read that part

"you also meet"

not "you alternatively meet"

this is additive, clear and simple

Could be reasonably parsed as "You may convey a work based on the Program (...) provided that you also meet all of these conditions"

not in this world

No?

nope.

Essentially "You may convey one of two things, provided that you also meet all of these conditions"

"one of those things is a work based on the program"

"the other thing is modifications to produce the work from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4"

nope, this is not this way that any lawyer I ever consulted with reads this

Ask the advice of a lawyer if you are not sure

that's what it boils down to

..."under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions"... is crystal clear: section 4 + 5 apply and in any case all section apply and not complying with any one of them voids the license

I want to read it that way too, I just think it is ambiguous

My day job is helping software teams with open source compliance :P so take it as you want, but none finds this ambiguous but you

actually I think it does make sense

if anything because the way I parsed it doesn't

you can't convey modifications in the form of source code under the terms of section 4

Note that if you are dealing with GPL 3.0 code in devices (such as phone, tablets, settops, networking devices, etc.) many or most of them would have the extra requirements of section 6 "user product". Based on your profile this would apply to pachinko machines :P

I'm personally not working with pachinko machines, nor do I know what OSS they use, if any, but thanks :)

Just as a FYI

Thank you for the answer, again. I am finally convinced.

Well I hope this helps. :)

The GPL can be a pain at times for sure, but it is what it is

It is certainly less painful than most of the commercial software licenses I ever came across.

At least you get to keep your soul and do not have to surrender your first male new born as with most commercial contracts.

Actually, this all started because I wanted to suggest to Code Review that they try to change the license of code in their questions/answers to something better than Creative Commons

The SO license is a pretty poor choice for code review and code snippets unfortunately.

:)

Anyways. Thank you for all the support. I'll place a bounty once the system allows it in about 14 hours :D

Amazing work!

Glad it was of some help :) I enjoy this stuffs :P

I further edited the question based on this chat to make clear that section 5 is additive to 4 and 6 to 4 and 5.