Anonymous writes "Clever ways to skirt the GPL have become a hot topic. The community is discussing whether a developer can revoke a customer's support subscription when the customer redistributes GPLed software. I have little to add to that debate, but I've drafted a paper suggesting one way the GPL could be modified to close this kind of loophole. The paper is entitled Collateral Restrictions and the GPL.
Comments (RB): The Slashdot discussion of Sveasoft is quite interesting; there seems to be a new worst offender for the GPL. Agreements to impose "any further restrictions" seem to run directly afoul of the quite well-written GPL, but this is clearly being tested in practice. New theories about what kind of restrictions don't quite make that definition seem to be sprouting up. Davidoff claims this clause is "restricting exercise of rights, not merely the rights themselves," and recommends a tweak to that effect.
Tweaking the GPL could cause all kinds of problems to software that does not incorporate future versions of the GPL. Though the FSF recommends licensing to future versions, many projects do not, including the Linux kernel itself which explicitly notes future versions do not apply. Unless there is a serious problem with the GPL (which I think this is not), it should not be touched. Also, what exactly is the difference between rights and exercise of rights in software? Probably not enough to change the GPL.
Thanks to Dave Price of University of Texas Law School for also adding to this debate."