2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
% compliance-guide.tex -*- LaTeX -*-
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\part{A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance}
|
2014-03-16 20:21:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{gpl-compliance-guide}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
{\parindent 0in
|
|
|
|
|
This part is: \\
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{tabbing}
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2008, 2014 \= \hspace{.2in} Bradley M. Kuhn. \\
|
2014-11-07 02:30:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2014 \> \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc. \\
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2008, 2014 \> \hspace{.2in} Software Freedom Law Center. \\
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\end{tabbing}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\vspace{1in}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-20 13:59:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Authors of this part are: \\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bradley M. Kuhn \\
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Williamson \\
|
|
|
|
|
Karen M. Sandler \\
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-24 23:26:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\vspace{1in}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copy editors of this part include: \\
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Michlmayr
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\vspace{3in}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
The copyright holders of this part hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify,
|
|
|
|
|
convey, Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
|
|
|
|
|
Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License. A copy of that
|
|
|
|
|
license is available at
|
2014-11-06 22:02:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\url{https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode}.
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\end{center}
|
2014-03-20 13:59:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\bigskip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\chapter*{Executive Summary}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a guide to effective compliance with the GNU General Public
|
2014-03-21 01:02:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
License (GPL) and related licenses. Copyleft advocates
|
|
|
|
|
usually seek to assist the community with
|
|
|
|
|
GPL compliance cooperatively. This guide focuses on complying from the
|
|
|
|
|
start, so that readers can learn to avoid enforcement actions entirely, or, at
|
|
|
|
|
least, minimize the negative impact when enforcement actions occur.
|
|
|
|
|
This guide introduces and explains basic legal concepts related to the GPL and its
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
enforcement by copyright holders. It also outlines business practices and
|
|
|
|
|
methods that lead to better GPL compliance. Finally, it recommends proper
|
|
|
|
|
post-violation responses to the concerns of copyright holders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Background}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 21:46:50 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Copyright law grants exclusive rights to authors. Authors who chose copyleft
|
|
|
|
|
seek to protect the freedom of users and developers to copy, share, modify
|
|
|
|
|
and redistribute the software. However, copyleft is ultimately implemented
|
|
|
|
|
through copyright, and the GPL is primarily and by default a copyright
|
|
|
|
|
license. (See \S~\ref{explaining-copyright} for more about the interaction
|
|
|
|
|
between copyright and copyleft.) Copyright law grants an unnatural exclusive
|
|
|
|
|
control to copyright holders regarding copyright-controlled permissions
|
|
|
|
|
related to the work. Therefore, copyright holders (or their agents) are the
|
|
|
|
|
ultimately the sole authorities to enforce copyleft and protect the rights of
|
|
|
|
|
users. Actions for copyright infringement are the ultimate legal mechanism
|
|
|
|
|
for enforcement. Therefore, copyright holders, or collaborative groups of
|
|
|
|
|
copyright holders, have historically been the actors in GPL enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The earliest of these efforts began soon after the GPL was written by
|
2014-03-21 01:04:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Richard M.~Stallman (RMS) in 1989, and consisted of informal community efforts,
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
often in public Usenet discussions.\footnote{One example is the public
|
|
|
|
|
outcry over NeXT's attempt to make the Objective-C front-end to GCC
|
2014-03-21 01:04:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
proprietary. RMS, in fact, handled this enforcement action personally and
|
|
|
|
|
the Objective-C front-end is still part of upstream GCC today.} Over the next decade, the Free Software Foundation (FSF),
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
which holds copyrights in many GNU programs, was the only visible entity
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
actively enforcing its GPL'd copyrights on behalf of the software freedom
|
|
|
|
|
community.
|
|
|
|
|
FSF's enforcement
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
was generally a private process; the FSF contacted violators
|
|
|
|
|
confidentially and helped them to comply with the license. Most
|
|
|
|
|
violations were pursued this way until the early 2000's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:04:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
By that time, Linux-based systems such as GNU/Linux and BusyBox/Linux had become very common, particularly in
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
embedded devices such as wireless routers. During this period, public
|
|
|
|
|
ridicule of violators in the press and on Internet fora supplemented
|
|
|
|
|
ongoing private enforcement and increased pressure on businesses to
|
|
|
|
|
comply. In 2003, the FSF formalized its efforts into the GPL Compliance
|
|
|
|
|
Lab, increased the volume of enforcement, and built community coalitions
|
|
|
|
|
to encourage copyright holders to together settle amicably with violators.
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning in 2004, Harald Welte took a more organized public enforcement
|
2014-11-07 17:52:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
approach and launched \href{http://gpl-violations.org/}{gpl-violations.org}, a website and mailing
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
list for collecting reports of GPL violations. On the basis of these
|
|
|
|
|
reports, Welte successfully pursued many enforcements in Europe, including
|
2014-03-21 01:04:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
formal legal action. Harald earns the permanent fame as the first copyright
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
holder to bring legal action in a court regarding GPL compliance.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:06:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
In 2007, two copyright holders in BusyBox, in conjunction with the
|
|
|
|
|
Software Freedom Conservancy (``Conservancy''), filed the first copyright infringement lawsuit
|
|
|
|
|
based on a violation of the GPL\@ in the USA. While lawsuits are of course
|
|
|
|
|
quite public, the vast majority of Conservancy's enforcement actions
|
|
|
|
|
are resolved privately via
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
cooperative communications with violators. As both FSF and Conservancy have worked to bring
|
2014-03-21 01:06:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
individual companies into compliance, both organizations have encountered numerous
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
violations resulting from preventable problems such as inadequate
|
|
|
|
|
attention to licensing of upstream software, misconceptions about the
|
|
|
|
|
GPL's terms, and poor communication between software developers and their
|
2014-03-21 01:06:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
management. This document highlights these problems and describe
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
best practices to encourage corporate Free Software users to reevaluate their
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
approach to GPL'd software and avoid future violations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:07:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Both FSF and Conservancy continue GPL enforcement and compliance efforts
|
|
|
|
|
for software under the GPL, the GNU Lesser
|
|
|
|
|
Public License (LGPL) and other copyleft licenses. In doing so, both organizations have
|
2014-09-17 22:25:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
found that most violations stem from a few common, avoidable mistakes. All copyleft advocates hope to educate the community of
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
commercial distributors, redistributors, and resellers on how to avoid
|
|
|
|
|
violations in the first place, and to respond adequately and appropriately
|
|
|
|
|
when a violation occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Who Has Compliance Obligations?}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
All distributors of modified or unmodified versions of copylefted works
|
|
|
|
|
unmodified versions of the works have compliance obligations. Common methods
|
|
|
|
|
of modifying the works include innumerable common acts, such as:
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\item embedding those works as executable copies
|
|
|
|
|
into a device,
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\item transferring a digital copy of excutable copies to someone else,
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\item posting a patch to the copylefted software to a public mailing list.
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Such distributors have obligations to (at least) the users to whom they (or
|
|
|
|
|
intermediary parties) distribute those copies. In some cases, distributors
|
|
|
|
|
have obligations to third parties not directly receiving their distribution
|
|
|
|
|
of the works (depending on the distributors chosen licensing options, as
|
|
|
|
|
described later in \S~\ref{binary-distribution-permission}). In addition,
|
|
|
|
|
distributors have compliance obligations to upstream parties, such as
|
|
|
|
|
preservation of reasonable legal notices embedded in the code, and
|
|
|
|
|
appropriate labeling of modified versions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Online service providers and distributors alike have other compliance
|
|
|
|
|
obligations. In general, they must refrain from imposing any additional
|
|
|
|
|
restrictions on downstream parties. Most typically, such compliance problems
|
|
|
|
|
arise from ``umbrella licenses:'' EULAs, or sublicenses that restrict
|
|
|
|
|
downstream users’ rights under copyleft. (See \S~\ref{GPLv2s6} and
|
|
|
|
|
\S~\ref{GPLv3s10}).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patent holders having claims reading on GPL'd works they distribute must
|
|
|
|
|
refrain from enforcing those claims against parties to whom they distribute.
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, patent holders holding copyrights on GPLv3'd works must further
|
|
|
|
|
grant an explicit patent license for any patent claims reading on the version
|
|
|
|
|
they distributed, and therefore cannot enforce those specific patent claims
|
|
|
|
|
against anyone making, using or selling a work based on their distributed
|
|
|
|
|
version. All parties must refrain from acting as a provider of services or
|
|
|
|
|
distributor of licensed works if they have accepted, or had imposed on them
|
|
|
|
|
by judicial action, any legal conditions that would prevent them from meeting
|
|
|
|
|
any obligation under GPL\@. (See \S~\ref{GPLv2s7}, \S~\ref{GPLv3s11} and
|
|
|
|
|
\S~\ref{GPLv3s12}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{What Are The Risks of Non-Compliance?}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyleft experts have for decades observed a significant mismatch between the
|
|
|
|
|
assumptions most businesses make about copyleft compliance and the realities.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly due to excessive marketing of proprietary tools and services from
|
|
|
|
|
the for-profit compliance industry, businesses perennially focus on the wrong
|
|
|
|
|
concerns. This tutorial seeks to educate those businesses about what
|
|
|
|
|
actually goes wrong, what causes disputes, and how to resolve those disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many businesses currently invest undue resources to avoid unlikely risks that
|
|
|
|
|
have low historical incidence of occurrence and low cost of remediation,
|
|
|
|
|
while leaving unmanaged the risks that have historically resulted in all the
|
|
|
|
|
litigation and other adverse outcomes. For example, some ``compliance
|
|
|
|
|
industry''\footnote{``Compliance industry'' refers to third-party for-profit
|
|
|
|
|
companies that market proprietary software tools and/or consulting services
|
|
|
|
|
that purport to aid businesses with their Free Software license compliance
|
|
|
|
|
obligations, such as those found in GPL and other copyleft licenses. This
|
|
|
|
|
tutorial leaves the term in quotes throughout, primarily to communicate the
|
|
|
|
|
skepticism most of this tutorial's authors feel regarding the mere
|
|
|
|
|
existence of this industry. Not only do copyleft advocates object on
|
|
|
|
|
principle to proprietary software tools in general, and to their ironic use
|
|
|
|
|
specifically to comply with copyleft, but also to the ``compliance
|
|
|
|
|
industry'' vendors' marketing messaging, which some copyleft advocates
|
|
|
|
|
claim as a cause in the risk misassessments discussed herein. Bradley
|
|
|
|
|
M.~Kuhn, specifically, regularly uses the term ``compliance industrial
|
|
|
|
|
complex''
|
|
|
|
|
\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex}{to
|
|
|
|
|
analogize the types of problems in this industry to those warned against
|
|
|
|
|
in the phrase of origin}.} vendors insist that great effort must be
|
|
|
|
|
expended to carefully list, in the menus or manuals of embedded electronics
|
|
|
|
|
products, copyright notices for every last copyright holder that contributed
|
|
|
|
|
to the Free Software included in the product. While nearly all Free Software
|
|
|
|
|
licenses, including copylefts like GPL, require preservation and display of
|
|
|
|
|
copyright notices, failure to meet this specific requirement is trivially
|
|
|
|
|
remedied. Therefore, businesses should spend just reasonable efforts to
|
|
|
|
|
properly display copyright notices, and note that failure to do so is simply
|
|
|
|
|
remedied: add the missing copyright notice!
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Understanding Who's Enforcing}
|
|
|
|
|
\label{compliance-understanding-whos-enforcing}
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
The mismatch between actual compliance risk and compliance risk management
|
|
|
|
|
typically results from a misunderstanding of licensor intentions. For-profit
|
|
|
|
|
businesses often err by assuming other actors have kindred motivations. The
|
|
|
|
|
primary enforcers of the GPL, however, have goals that for-profit businesses
|
|
|
|
|
will find strange and perhaps downright alien.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically, community-oriented GPL enforcement organizations (called
|
|
|
|
|
``COGEOs'' throughout the remainder of this tutorial) are typically
|
|
|
|
|
non-profit charities (such as the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy) who
|
|
|
|
|
declare, as part of their charitable mission, advancement of software freedom
|
|
|
|
|
for all users. In the USA, these COGEOs are all classified as charitable
|
|
|
|
|
under the IRS's 501(c)(3) designation, which is reserved for organizations
|
|
|
|
|
that have a mission to enhance the public good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As such, these COGEOs enforce GPL primarily to pursue the policy goals and
|
|
|
|
|
motivations discussed throughout this tutorial: to spread software freedom
|
|
|
|
|
further. As such, COGEOs are unified in their primary goal to bring the
|
|
|
|
|
violator back into compliance as quickly as possible, and redress the damage
|
|
|
|
|
caused by the violation. COGEOs are steadfast in their position in a
|
|
|
|
|
violation negotiation: comply with the license and respect freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, other entities do not share the full ethos of software freedom as
|
|
|
|
|
institutionalized by COGEOs, and those entities pursue GPL violations
|
|
|
|
|
differently. Oracle, a company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon
|
|
|
|
|
discovering GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software
|
|
|
|
|
license separately for a fee. While this practice is not one a COGEO would
|
|
|
|
|
undertaking nor endorsing, a copyleft license technically permits this
|
|
|
|
|
behavior. To put a finer point on this practice already discussed
|
|
|
|
|
in~\S~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}, copyleft advocates usually find copyleft
|
|
|
|
|
enforcement efforts focused on extract alternative proprietary licenses
|
|
|
|
|
distasteful at best, and a corrupt manipulation of copyleft at worst. Much
|
|
|
|
|
to the advocates' chagrin, such for-profit enforcement efforts seem to
|
|
|
|
|
increase rather than decrease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, unsurprisingly, for-profit adopters of GPL'd software often incorrectly
|
|
|
|
|
assume that all copyright holders seek royalties. Businesses therefore focus
|
|
|
|
|
on the risk of so-called ``accidental'' (typically as the result of
|
|
|
|
|
unsupervised activity by individual programmers) infringe copyright by
|
|
|
|
|
incorporating ``snippets'' of copylefted code into their own proprietary
|
|
|
|
|
computer program. ``Compliance industry'' flagship products, therefore,
|
|
|
|
|
focus on ``code scanning'' services that purport to detect accidental
|
|
|
|
|
inclusions. Such effort focuses on proprietary software development and view
|
|
|
|
|
Free Software as a foreign interloper. Such approach not only ignores
|
|
|
|
|
current reality that many companies build their products directly on major
|
|
|
|
|
copylefted projects (e.g., Android vendor's use of the kernel named Linux),
|
|
|
|
|
but also creates a culture of fear among developers, leading them into a
|
|
|
|
|
downward spiral of further hiding their necessary reliance on copylefted
|
|
|
|
|
software in the company's products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, COGEOs regard GPL compliance failures as an opportunity to
|
|
|
|
|
improve compliance. Every compliance failure downstream represents a loss of
|
|
|
|
|
rights by their users. The COGEOs are the guardian of its users’ and
|
|
|
|
|
developers' rights. Their activity seeks to restore those rights, and
|
|
|
|
|
to protect the project’s contributors’ intentions in the making of their
|
|
|
|
|
software.
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Best Practices to Avoid Common Violations}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{best-practices}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Unlike highly permissive licenses (such as the ISC license), which
|
2014-03-21 01:08:50 +00:00
|
|
|
|
typically only require preservation of copyright notices, licensees face many
|
|
|
|
|
important requirements from the GPL. These requirements are
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
carefully designed to uphold certain values and standards of the software
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
freedom community. While the GPL's requirements may initially appear
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
counter-intuitive to those more familiar with proprietary software
|
2014-03-21 01:08:50 +00:00
|
|
|
|
licenses, by comparison, its terms are in fact clear and quite favorable to
|
|
|
|
|
licensees. Indeed, the GPL's terms actually simplify compliance when
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
violations occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:14:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
GPL violations occur (or, are compounded) most often when companies lack sound
|
|
|
|
|
practices for the incorporation of GPL'd components into their
|
|
|
|
|
internal development environment. This section introduces some best
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
practices for software tool selection, integration and distribution,
|
2014-03-21 01:14:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
inspired by and congruent with software freedom methodologies. Companies should
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
establish such practices before building a product based on GPL'd
|
|
|
|
|
software.\footnote{This document addresses compliance with GPLv2,
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3, LGPLv2, and LGPLv3. Advice on avoiding the most common
|
|
|
|
|
errors differs little for compliance with these four licenses.
|
|
|
|
|
\S~\ref{lgpl} discusses the key differences between GPL and LGPL
|
|
|
|
|
compliance.}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Evaluate License Applicability}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{derivative-works}
|
2014-11-11 01:16:07 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Political discussion about the GPL often centers around determining the
|
|
|
|
|
``work'' that must be licensed under GPL, or in other words, ``what is the
|
|
|
|
|
derivative and/or combined work that was created''. Nearly ever esoteric
|
|
|
|
|
question asked by lawyers seek to consider that question
|
|
|
|
|
\footnote{\tutorialpartsplit{In fact, a companion work, \textit{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related
|
|
|
|
|
Licenses} contains an entire section discussing derivative works}{This tutorial in fact
|
|
|
|
|
also addresses the issue at length in~\S~\ref{derivative-works}}.} (perhaps because
|
|
|
|
|
that question explores exciting legal issues while the majority of the GPL
|
|
|
|
|
deals with much more mundane ones).
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, GPL was designed
|
|
|
|
|
primarily to embody the licensing feature of copyleft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, most companies who add
|
|
|
|
|
complex features to and make combinations with GPL'd software
|
|
|
|
|
are already well aware of their
|
|
|
|
|
more complex obligations under the license that require complex legal
|
|
|
|
|
analysis. And, there are few companies overall that engage in such
|
|
|
|
|
activities. Thus, in practical reality, this issue is not relevant to the vast
|
|
|
|
|
majority of companies distributing GPL'd software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, experienced GPL enforcers find that few redistributors'
|
2014-09-17 22:35:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
compliance challenges relate directly to combined work issues in copyleft.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead, the distributions of GPL'd
|
2014-03-21 01:17:07 +00:00
|
|
|
|
systems most often encountered typically consist of a full operating system
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
including components under the GPL (e.g., Linux, BusyBox) and components
|
|
|
|
|
under the LGPL (e.g., the GNU C Library). Sometimes, these programs have
|
|
|
|
|
been patched or slightly improved by direct modification of their sources,
|
2014-10-16 02:14:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
and thus the result is unequivocally a modified version. Alongside these programs,
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
companies often distribute fully independent, proprietary programs,
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
developed from scratch, which are designed to run on the Free Software operating
|
2014-03-21 01:17:07 +00:00
|
|
|
|
system but do not combine with, link to, modify, derive from, or otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
create a combined work with
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
the GPL'd components.\footnote{However, these programs do often combine
|
|
|
|
|
with LGPL'd libraries. This is discussed in detail in \S~\ref{lgpl}.}
|
|
|
|
|
In the latter case, where the work is unquestionably a separate work of
|
2014-03-21 01:17:07 +00:00
|
|
|
|
creative expression, no copyleft provisions are invoked.
|
2014-09-17 22:31:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
The core compliance issue faced, thus, in such a situation, is not an discussion of what is or is not a
|
2014-10-16 02:14:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
combined, derivative, and/or modified version of the work, but rather, issues related to distribution and
|
2014-09-17 22:31:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
conveyance of binary works based on GPL'd source, but without Complete,
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Corresponding Source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As such, issues of software delivery are the primary frustration for GPL
|
|
|
|
|
enforcers. In particular, the following short list accounts for at least 95\%
|
|
|
|
|
of the GPL violations ever encountered:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item The violator fails to provide required information about the presence
|
|
|
|
|
of copylefted programs and their applicable license terms in the product
|
|
|
|
|
they have purchased.
|
2014-03-21 01:17:07 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\item The violator fails to reliably deliver \hyperref[CCS
|
|
|
|
|
Definition]{complete, corresponding source} (CCS) for copylefted programs
|
|
|
|
|
the violator knew were included (i.e., the CCS is either delivered but
|
|
|
|
|
incomplete, or is not delivered at all).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item Requestors are ignored when they communicate with violator's published
|
|
|
|
|
addresses requesting fulfillment of businesses’ obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This tutorial therefore focuses primarily on these issue.
|
2014-03-21 01:17:07 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Admittedly, a tiny
|
2014-10-16 02:14:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
minority of compliance situations relate to question of derivative,
|
|
|
|
|
combined, or modified versions of the work. Those
|
2014-09-17 22:31:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
situations are so rare, and the details from situation to situation differ
|
|
|
|
|
greatly. Thus, such situations require a highly
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
fact-dependent analysis and cannot be addressed in a general-purpose
|
2014-09-17 22:31:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
document such as this one.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\medskip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most companies accused of violations lack a basic understanding
|
2014-09-19 22:02:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
of how to comply even in the straightforward scenario. This document
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
provides those companies with the fundamental and generally applicable prerequisite knowledge.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
For answers to rarer and more complicated legal questions, such as whether
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
your software is a derivative or combined work of some copylefted software, consult
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
with an attorney.\footnote{If you would like more information on the
|
|
|
|
|
application of derivative works doctrine to software, a detailed legal
|
|
|
|
|
discussion is presented in our colleague Dan Ravicher's article,
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\textit{Software Derivative Work: A Circuit Dependent Determination} and in
|
2014-03-21 01:43:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\tutorialpartsplit{\textit{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Licenses}'s Section on derivative works}{\S~\ref{derivative-works} of
|
|
|
|
|
this tutorial}.}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
This discussion thus assumes that you have already identified the
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
``work'' covered by the license, and that any components not under the GPL
|
|
|
|
|
(e.g., applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen
|
|
|
|
|
to run on a Linux-based operating system) distributed in conjunction with
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
those works are separate works within the meaning of copyright law and the GPL\@. In
|
|
|
|
|
such a case, the GPL requires you to provide complete corresponding
|
|
|
|
|
source (CCS)\footnote{For more on CCS, see
|
2014-03-21 01:43:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\tutorialpartsplit{\textit{Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Licenses}'s Section on GPLv2~\S2 and GPLv3~\S1.}{\S~\ref{GPLv2s2} and \S~\ref{GPLv3s1} of
|
2014-03-21 01:43:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
this tutorial}.}
|
2014-03-21 01:21:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
for the GPL'd components and your modifications thereto, but not
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
for independent proprietary applications. The procedures described in
|
|
|
|
|
this document address this typical scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Monitor Software Acquisition}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:22:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Software engineers deserve the freedom to innovate and import useful
|
|
|
|
|
software components to improve products. However, along with that
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
freedom should come rules and reporting procedures to make sure that you
|
2014-03-21 01:22:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
are aware of what software that you include with your product.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:23:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
The most typical response to an initial enforcement action is: ``We
|
|
|
|
|
didn't know there was GPL'd stuff in there''. This answer indicates
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
failure in the software acquisition and procurement process. Integration
|
|
|
|
|
of third-party proprietary software typically requires a formal
|
|
|
|
|
arrangement and management/legal oversight before the developers
|
2014-03-21 01:23:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
incorporate the software. By contrast, developers often obtain and
|
|
|
|
|
integrate Free Software without intervention nor oversight. That ease of acquisition, however,
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
does not mean the oversight is any less necessary. Just as your legal
|
|
|
|
|
and/or management team negotiates terms for inclusion of any proprietary
|
2014-03-21 01:23:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
software, they should gently facilitate all decisions to bring Free Software into your
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simple, engineering-oriented rules help provide a stable foundation for
|
2014-03-21 01:26:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Free Software integration. For example, simply ask your software developers to send an email to a
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
standard place describing each new Free Software component they add to the system,
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
and have them include a brief description of how they will incorporate it
|
2014-03-21 01:26:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
into the product. Further, make sure developers use a revision control
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
system (such as Git or Mercurial), and
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
store the upstream versions of all software in a ``vendor branch'' or
|
|
|
|
|
similar mechanism, whereby they can easily track and find the main version
|
2014-03-21 01:26:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
of the software and, separately, any local changes.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:26:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Such procedures are best instituted at your project's launch. Once
|
|
|
|
|
chaotic and poorly-sourced development processes begin, cataloging the
|
|
|
|
|
presence of GPL'd components becomes challenging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such a situation often requires use of a tool to ``catch up'' your knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
about what software your product includes. Most commonly, companies choose
|
|
|
|
|
some software licensing scanning tool to inspect the codebase. However,
|
|
|
|
|
there are few tools that are themselves Free Software. Thus, GPL enforcers
|
|
|
|
|
usually recommend the GPL'd
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\href{http://fossology.org/}{FOSSology system}, which analyzes a
|
2014-03-21 01:26:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
source code base and produces a list of Free Software licenses that may apply to
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
the code. FOSSology can help you build a catalog of the sources you have
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
already used to build your product. You can then expand that into a more
|
|
|
|
|
structured inventory and process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Track Your Changes and Releases}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:28:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
As explained in further detail below, the most important component of GPL
|
|
|
|
|
compliance is the one most often ignored: proper inclusion of CCS in all
|
|
|
|
|
distributions of GPL'd
|
|
|
|
|
software. To comply with GPL's CCS requirements, the distributor
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{must} always know precisely what sources generated a given binary
|
|
|
|
|
distribution.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an unfortunately large number of our enforcement cases, the violating
|
2014-03-21 01:30:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
company's engineering team had difficulty reconstructing the CCS
|
|
|
|
|
for binaries distributed by the company. Here are three simple rules to
|
2014-03-29 00:43:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
follow to decrease the likelihood of this occurrence:
|
2014-03-21 01:30:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item Ensure that your
|
|
|
|
|
developers are using revision control systems properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item Have developers mark or ``tag'' the full source tree corresponding to
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
builds distributed to customers.
|
2014-03-21 01:30:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item Check that your developers store all parts of the software
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
development in the revision control system, including {\sc readme}s, build
|
2014-03-21 01:30:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
scripts, engineers' notes, and documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your developers will benefit anyway from these rules. Developers will be
|
|
|
|
|
happier in their jobs if their tools already track the precise version of
|
|
|
|
|
source that corresponds to any deployed binary.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Avoid the ``Build Guru''}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too many software projects rely on only one or a very few team members who
|
|
|
|
|
know how to build and assemble the final released product. Such knowledge
|
2014-03-21 01:32:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
centralization not only creates engineering redundancy issues, but also
|
|
|
|
|
thwarts GPL compliance. Specifically, CCS does not just require source code,
|
|
|
|
|
but scripts and other material that explain how to control compilation and
|
|
|
|
|
installation of the executable and object code.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 01:32:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Thus, avoid relying on a ``build guru'', a single developer who is the only one
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
who knows how to produce your final product. Make sure the build process
|
|
|
|
|
is well defined. Train every developer on the build process for the final
|
|
|
|
|
binary distribution, including (in the case of embedded software)
|
|
|
|
|
generating a final firmware image suitable for distribution to the
|
|
|
|
|
customer. Require developers to use revision control for build processes.
|
|
|
|
|
Make a rule that adding new components to the system without adequate
|
|
|
|
|
build instructions (or better yet, scripts) is unacceptable engineering
|
|
|
|
|
practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Details of Compliant Distribution}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-11 03:11:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Distribution of GPL'd works has requirements; copyleft will not function
|
|
|
|
|
without placing requirements on redistribution. However, some requirements
|
|
|
|
|
are more likely to cause compliance difficult than others. This
|
|
|
|
|
chapter\footnote{Note that this chapter refers heavily to specific provisions
|
|
|
|
|
and language in
|
|
|
|
|
\hyperref[GPLv2s3-full-text]{GPLv2\S3}
|
|
|
|
|
and \hyperref[GPLv3s6-full-text]{GPLv3\S6}.
|
|
|
|
|
It may be helpful to review \S~\ref{GPLv2s3} and \S~\ref{GPLv3s6} first,
|
|
|
|
|
and then have a copy of each license open while reading this
|
|
|
|
|
section.} explains some the specific requirements placed upon
|
|
|
|
|
distributors of GPL'd software that redistributors are most likely to
|
|
|
|
|
overlook, yielding compliance problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, \hyperref[GPLv2s1]{GPLv2\S1} and \hyperref[GPLv2s4]{GPLv2\S4} require
|
|
|
|
|
that the full license text must accompany every distribution (either in
|
|
|
|
|
source or binary form) of each licensed work. Strangely, this requirement is
|
|
|
|
|
responsible for a surprisingly significant fraction of compliance errors; too
|
|
|
|
|
often, physical products lack required information about the presence of
|
|
|
|
|
GPL’d programs and the applicable license terms. Automated build processes
|
|
|
|
|
can and should carry a copy of the license from the the source distribution
|
|
|
|
|
into the final binary firmware package for embedded products. Such
|
|
|
|
|
automation usually achieves compliance regarding license inclusion
|
|
|
|
|
requirements\footnote{At least one COGEO recommends the
|
|
|
|
|
\href{https://www.yoctoproject.org/}{Yocto Project}, since its engineers
|
|
|
|
|
have designed such features into it build process.}
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Binary Distribution Permission}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{binary-distribution-permission}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% be careful below, you cannot refill the \if section, so don't refill
|
|
|
|
|
% this paragraph without care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The various versions of the GPL are copyright licenses that grant
|
|
|
|
|
permission to make certain uses of software that are otherwise restricted
|
|
|
|
|
by copyright law. This permission is conditioned upon compliance with the
|
2014-03-21 01:33:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
GPL's requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
This section walks through the requirements (of both GPLv2 and GPLv3) that
|
|
|
|
|
apply when you distribute GPL'd programs in binary (i.e., executable or
|
|
|
|
|
object code) form, which is typical for embedded applications. Because a
|
|
|
|
|
binary application derives from a program's original sources, you need
|
|
|
|
|
permission from the copyright holder to distribute it. \S~3 of GPLv2 and
|
|
|
|
|
\S~6 of GPLv3 contain the permissions and conditions related to binary
|
|
|
|
|
distributions of GPL'd programs.\footnote{These sections cannot be fully
|
|
|
|
|
understood in isolation; read the entire license thoroughly before
|
|
|
|
|
focusing on any particular provision. However, once you have read and
|
|
|
|
|
understood the entire license, look to these sections to guide
|
2014-11-11 13:22:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
compliance for binary distributions.} Failure to provide or offer CCS is the
|
|
|
|
|
single largest failure mode leading to compliance disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPL's binary distribution sections offer a choice of compliance methods,
|
|
|
|
|
each of which we consider in turn. Each option refers to the
|
|
|
|
|
``Corresponding Source'' code for the binary distribution, which includes
|
|
|
|
|
the source code from which the binary was produced. This abbreviated and
|
|
|
|
|
simplified definition is sufficient for the binary distribution discussion
|
|
|
|
|
in this section, but you may wish to refer back to this section after
|
|
|
|
|
reading the thorough discussion of ``Corresponding Source'' that appears
|
|
|
|
|
in \S~\ref{corresponding-source}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Option (a): Source Alongside Binary}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv2~\S~3(a) and v3~\S~6(a) embody the easiest option for providing
|
|
|
|
|
source code: including Corresponding Source with every binary
|
|
|
|
|
distribution. While other options appear initially less onerous, this
|
|
|
|
|
option invariably minimizes potential compliance problems, because when
|
|
|
|
|
you distribute Corresponding Source with the binary, \emph{your GPL
|
|
|
|
|
obligations are satisfied at the time of distribution}. This is not
|
|
|
|
|
true of other options, and for this reason, we urge you to seriously
|
|
|
|
|
consider this option. If you do not, you may extend the duration of your
|
|
|
|
|
obligations far beyond your last binary distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance under this option is straightforward. If you ship a product
|
|
|
|
|
that includes binary copies of GPL'd software (e.g., in firmware, or on a
|
|
|
|
|
hard drive, CD, or other permanent storage medium), you can store the
|
|
|
|
|
Corresponding Source alongside the binaries. Alternatively, you can
|
|
|
|
|
include the source on a CD or other removable storage medium in the box
|
|
|
|
|
containing the product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv2 refers to the various storage mechanisms as ``medi[a] customarily
|
|
|
|
|
used for software interchange''. While the Internet has attained primacy
|
|
|
|
|
as a means of software distribution where super-fast Internet connections
|
|
|
|
|
are available, GPLv2 was written at a time when downloading software was
|
|
|
|
|
not practical (and was often impossible). For much of the world, this
|
|
|
|
|
condition has not changed since GPLv2's publication, and the Internet
|
|
|
|
|
still cannot be considered ``a medium customary for software
|
|
|
|
|
interchange''. GPLv3 clarifies this matter, requiring that source be
|
|
|
|
|
``fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software
|
|
|
|
|
interchange''. This language affirms that option (a) requires binary
|
|
|
|
|
redistributors to provide source on a physical medium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that while selection of option (a) requires distribution on a
|
|
|
|
|
physical medium, voluntary distribution via the Internet is very useful. This
|
|
|
|
|
is discussed in detail in \S~\ref{offer-with-internet}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Option (b): The Offer}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{offer-for-source}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many distributors prefer to ship only an offer for source with the binary
|
|
|
|
|
distribution, rather than the complete source package. This
|
|
|
|
|
option has value when the cost of source distribution is a true
|
|
|
|
|
per-unit cost. For example, this option might be a good choice for
|
|
|
|
|
embedded products with permanent storage too small to fit the source, and
|
|
|
|
|
which are not otherwise shipped with a CD but \emph{are} shipped with a
|
|
|
|
|
manual or other printed material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, this option increases the duration of your obligations
|
|
|
|
|
dramatically. An offer for source must be good for three full years from
|
|
|
|
|
your last binary distribution (under GPLv2), or your last binary or spare
|
|
|
|
|
part distribution (under GPLv3). Your source code request and
|
|
|
|
|
provisioning system must be designed to last much longer than your product
|
2014-11-11 13:21:10 +00:00
|
|
|
|
life cycle. Thus, it also increases your compliance costs in the long
|
|
|
|
|
run.
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
In addition, if you are required to comply with the terms of GPLv2, you
|
|
|
|
|
{\bf cannot} use a network service to provide the source code. For GPLv2,
|
|
|
|
|
the source code offer is fulfilled only with physical media. This usually
|
|
|
|
|
means that you must continue to produce an up-to-date ``source code CD''
|
|
|
|
|
for years after the product's end-of-life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\label{offer-with-internet}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under GPLv2, it is acceptable and advisable for your offer for source code
|
|
|
|
|
to include an Internet link for downloadable source \emph{in addition} to
|
|
|
|
|
offering source on a physical medium. This practice enables those with
|
|
|
|
|
fast network connections to get the source more quickly, and typically
|
|
|
|
|
decreases the number of physical media fulfillment requests.
|
|
|
|
|
(GPLv3~\S~6(b) permits provision of source with a public
|
|
|
|
|
network-accessible distribution only and no physical media. We discuss
|
|
|
|
|
this in detail at the end of this section.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a suggested compliant offer for source under GPLv2 (and
|
|
|
|
|
is also acceptable for GPLv3) that you would include in your printed
|
|
|
|
|
materials accompanying each binary distribution:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
The software included in this product contains copyrighted software that
|
|
|
|
|
is licensed under the GPL\@. A copy of that license is included in this
|
|
|
|
|
document on page $X$\@. You may obtain the complete Corresponding Source
|
|
|
|
|
code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this
|
|
|
|
|
product, which will be no earlier than 2011-08-01, by sending a money
|
|
|
|
|
order or check for \$5 to: \\
|
|
|
|
|
GPL Compliance Division \\
|
|
|
|
|
Our Company \\
|
|
|
|
|
Any Town, US 99999 \\
|
|
|
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
|
Please write ``source for product $Y$'' in the memo line of your
|
|
|
|
|
payment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may also find a copy of the source at
|
2014-11-06 22:02:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\url{http://www.example.com/sources/Y/}.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few important details about this offer. First, it requires a
|
|
|
|
|
copying fee. GPLv2 permits ``a charge no more than your cost of
|
|
|
|
|
physically performing source distribution''. This fee must be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
If your cost of copying and mailing a CD is more than around \$10, you
|
|
|
|
|
should perhaps find a cheaper CD stock and shipment method. It is simply
|
|
|
|
|
not in your interest to try to overcharge the community. Abuse of this
|
|
|
|
|
provision in order to make a for-profit enterprise of source code
|
|
|
|
|
provision will likely trigger enforcement action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, note that the last line makes the offer valid to anyone who
|
|
|
|
|
requests the source. This is because v2~\S~3(b) requires that offers be
|
|
|
|
|
``to give any third party'' a copy of the Corresponding Source. GPLv3 has
|
|
|
|
|
a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for ``anyone
|
|
|
|
|
who possesses the object code''. These requirements indicated in
|
2014-03-25 01:27:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
v2~\S~3(c) and v3~\S~6(c) are so that noncommercial redistributors may
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
pass these offers along with their distributions. Therefore, the offers
|
|
|
|
|
must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received
|
|
|
|
|
a copy of the binaries from them. Many distributors overlook this
|
|
|
|
|
requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request
|
|
|
|
|
from their direct customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
|
|
|
|
|
distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
|
|
|
|
|
fulfillment process. GPLv2~\S~3(c) and GPLv3~\S~6(c) avoid burdening
|
|
|
|
|
noncommercial, occasional redistributors with fulfillment request
|
|
|
|
|
obligations by allowing them to pass along the offer for source as they
|
|
|
|
|
received it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that commercial redistributors cannot avail themselves of the option
|
|
|
|
|
(c) exception, and so while your offer for source must be good to anyone
|
|
|
|
|
who receives the offer (under v2) or the object code (under v3), it
|
|
|
|
|
\emph{cannot} extinguish the obligations of anyone who commercially
|
|
|
|
|
redistributes your product. The license terms apply to anyone who
|
|
|
|
|
distributes GPL'd software, regardless of whether they are the original
|
|
|
|
|
distributor. Take the example of Vendor $V$, who develops a software
|
|
|
|
|
platform from GPL'd sources for use in embedded devices. Manufacturer $M$
|
|
|
|
|
contracts with $V$ to install the software as firmware in $M$'s device.
|
|
|
|
|
$V$ provides the software to $M$, along with a compliant offer for source.
|
|
|
|
|
In this situation, $M$ cannot simply pass $V$'s offer for source along to
|
|
|
|
|
its customers. $M$ also distributes the GPL'd software commercially, so
|
|
|
|
|
$M$ too must comply with the GPL and provide source (or $M$'s \emph{own}
|
|
|
|
|
offer for source) to $M$'s customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This situation illustrates that the offer for source is often a poor
|
|
|
|
|
choice for products that your customers will likely redistribute. If you
|
|
|
|
|
include the source itself with the products, then your distribution to
|
|
|
|
|
your customers is compliant, and their (unmodified) distribution to their
|
|
|
|
|
customers is likewise compliant, because both include source. If you
|
|
|
|
|
include only an offer for source, your distribution is compliant but your
|
|
|
|
|
customer's distribution does not ``inherit'' that compliance, because they
|
|
|
|
|
have not made their own offer to accompany their distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The terms related to the offer for source are quite different if you
|
|
|
|
|
distribute under GPLv3. Under v3, you may make source available only over
|
|
|
|
|
a network server, as long as it is available to the general public and
|
|
|
|
|
remains active for three years from the last distribution of your product
|
|
|
|
|
or related spare part. Accordingly, you may satisfy your fulfillment
|
|
|
|
|
obligations via Internet-only distribution. This makes the ``offer for
|
|
|
|
|
source'' option less troublesome for v3-only distributions, easing
|
|
|
|
|
compliance for commercial redistributors. However, before you switch to a
|
|
|
|
|
purely Internet-based fulfillment process, you must first confirm that you
|
|
|
|
|
can actually distribute \emph{all} of the software under GPLv3. Some
|
|
|
|
|
programs are indeed licensed under ``GPLv2, \emph{or any later version}''
|
|
|
|
|
(often abbreviated ``GPLv2-or-later''). Such licensing gives you the
|
|
|
|
|
option to redistribute under GPLv3. However, a few popular programs are
|
|
|
|
|
only licensed under GPLv2 and not ``or any later version''
|
|
|
|
|
(``GPLv2-only''). You cannot provide only Internet-based source request
|
|
|
|
|
fulfillment for the latter programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you determine that all GPL'd works in your whole product allow upgrade
|
|
|
|
|
to GPLv3 (or were already GPLv3'd to start), your offer for source may be
|
|
|
|
|
as simple as this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
The software included in this product contains copyrighted software that
|
|
|
|
|
is licensed under the GPLv3\@. A copy of that license is included in this
|
|
|
|
|
document on page $X$\@. You may obtain the complete Corresponding Source
|
|
|
|
|
code from us for a period of three years after our last shipment of this
|
|
|
|
|
product and/or spare parts therefor, which will be no earlier than
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-01, on our website at
|
2014-11-06 22:02:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\url{http://www.example.com/sources/productnum/}.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\end{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\medskip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, source offers must be accompanied by a copy of
|
|
|
|
|
the license itself, either electronically or in print, with every
|
|
|
|
|
distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, it is unacceptable to use option (b) merely because you do not have
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Corresponding Source ready. We find that some companies choose this option
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
because writing an offer is easy, but producing a source distribution as
|
|
|
|
|
an afterthought to a hasty development process is difficult. The offer
|
|
|
|
|
for source does not exist as a stop-gap solution for companies rushing to
|
|
|
|
|
market with an out-of-compliance product. If you ship an offer for source
|
|
|
|
|
with your product but cannot actually deliver \emph{immediately} on that
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
offer when your customers request it, you should expect an enforcement
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Option (c): Noncommercial Offers}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As discussed in the last section, GPLv2~\S~3(c) and GPLv3~\S~6(c) apply
|
|
|
|
|
only to noncommercial use. These options are not available to businesses
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
distributing GPL'd software. Consequently, companies that redistribute
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
software packaged for them by an upstream vendor cannot merely pass along
|
|
|
|
|
the offer they received from the vendor; they must provide their own offer
|
|
|
|
|
or corresponding source to their distributees. We talk in detail about
|
|
|
|
|
upstream software providers in \S~\ref{upstream}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Option 6(d) in GPLv3: Internet Distribution}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under GPLv2, your formal provisioning options for Corresponding Source
|
|
|
|
|
ended with \S~3(c). But even under GPLv2, pure Internet source
|
|
|
|
|
distribution was a common practice and generally considered to be
|
|
|
|
|
compliant. GPLv2 mentions Internet-only distribution almost as aside in
|
|
|
|
|
the language, in text at the end of the section after the three
|
|
|
|
|
provisioning options are listed. To quote that part of GPLv2~\S~3:
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to
|
|
|
|
|
copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
|
|
|
|
|
source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code,
|
|
|
|
|
even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with
|
|
|
|
|
the object code.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When that was written in 1991, Internet distribution of software was the
|
|
|
|
|
exception, not the rule. Some FTP sites existed, but generally software
|
|
|
|
|
was sent on magnetic tape or CDs. GPLv2 therefore mostly assumed that
|
|
|
|
|
binary distribution happened on some physical media. By contrast,
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3~\S~6(d) explicitly gives an option for this practice that the
|
|
|
|
|
community has historically considered GPLv2-compliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, you may fulfill your source-provision obligations by providing the
|
|
|
|
|
source code in the same way and from the same location. When exercising
|
|
|
|
|
this option, you are not obligated to ensure that users download the
|
|
|
|
|
source when they download the binary, and you may use separate servers as
|
|
|
|
|
needed to fulfill the requests as long as you make the source as
|
|
|
|
|
accessible as the binary. However, you must ensure that users can easily
|
|
|
|
|
find the source code at the time they download the binary. GPLv3~\S~6(d)
|
|
|
|
|
thus clarifies a point that has caused confusion about source provision in
|
|
|
|
|
v2. Indeed, many such important clarifications are included in v3 which
|
|
|
|
|
together provide a compelling reason for authors and redistributors alike
|
|
|
|
|
to adopt GPLv3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Option 6(e) in GPLv3: Software Torrents}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peer-to-peer file sharing arose well after GPLv2 was written, and does not
|
|
|
|
|
easily fit any of the v2 source provision options. GPLv3~\S~6(e)
|
|
|
|
|
addresses this issue, explicitly allowing for distribution of source and
|
|
|
|
|
binary together on a peer-to-peer file sharing network. If you distribute
|
|
|
|
|
solely via peer-to-peer networks, you can exercise this option. However,
|
|
|
|
|
peer-to-peer source distribution \emph{cannot} fulfill your source
|
|
|
|
|
provision obligations for non-peer-to-peer binary distributions. Finally,
|
|
|
|
|
you should ensure that binaries and source are equally seeded upon initial
|
|
|
|
|
peer-to-peer distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Preparing Corresponding Source}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{corresponding-source}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most enforcement cases involve companies that have unfortunately not
|
|
|
|
|
implemented procedures like our \S~\ref{best-practices} recommendations
|
|
|
|
|
and have no source distribution arranged at all. These companies must
|
|
|
|
|
work backwards from a binary distribution to come into compliance. Our
|
|
|
|
|
recommendations in \S~\ref{best-practices} are designed to make it easy to
|
|
|
|
|
construct a complete and Corresponding Source release from the outset. If
|
|
|
|
|
you have followed those principles in your development, you can meet the
|
|
|
|
|
following requirements with ease. If you have not, you may have
|
|
|
|
|
substantial reconstruction work to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Assemble the Sources}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For every binary that you produce, you should collect and maintain a copy
|
|
|
|
|
of the sources from which it was built. A large system, such as an
|
|
|
|
|
embedded firmware, will probably contain many GPL'd and LGPL'd components
|
|
|
|
|
for which you will have to provide source. The binary distribution may
|
|
|
|
|
also contain proprietary components which are separate and independent
|
|
|
|
|
works that are covered by neither the GPL nor LGPL\@.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best way to separate out your sources is to have a subdirectory for
|
|
|
|
|
each component in your system. You can then easily mark some of them as
|
|
|
|
|
required for your Corresponding Source releases. Collecting
|
|
|
|
|
subdirectories of GPL'd and LGPL'd components is the first step toward
|
|
|
|
|
preparing your release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Building the Sources}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Few distributors, particularly of embedded systems, take care to read the
|
|
|
|
|
actual definition of Corresponding Source in the GPL\@. Consider
|
|
|
|
|
carefully the definition, from GPLv3:
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
The ``Corresponding Source'' for a work in object code form means all
|
|
|
|
|
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
|
|
|
|
|
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
|
|
|
|
|
control those activities.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the definition from GPLv2:
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
|
|
|
|
|
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means
|
|
|
|
|
all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
|
|
|
|
|
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation
|
|
|
|
|
and installation of the executable.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{quote}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that you must include ``scripts used to control compilation and
|
|
|
|
|
installation of the executable'' and/or anything ``needed to generate,
|
|
|
|
|
install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify
|
|
|
|
|
the work, including scripts to control those activities''. These phrases
|
|
|
|
|
are written to cover different types of build environments and systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, the details of what you need to provide with regard to scripts
|
|
|
|
|
and installation instructions vary depending on the software details. You
|
|
|
|
|
must provide all information necessary such that someone generally skilled
|
|
|
|
|
with computer systems could produce a binary similar to the one provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take as an example an embedded wireless device. Usually, a company
|
|
|
|
|
distributes a firmware, which includes a binary copy of
|
|
|
|
|
Linux\footnote{``Linux'' refers only to the kernel, not the larger system
|
|
|
|
|
as a whole.} and a filesystem. That filesystem contains various binary
|
|
|
|
|
programs, including some GPL'd binaries, alongside some proprietary
|
|
|
|
|
binaries that are separate works (i.e., not derived from, nor based on
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
freely-licensed sources). Consider what, in this case, constitutes adequate
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
``scripts to control compilation and installation'' or items ``needed to
|
|
|
|
|
generate, install and run'' the GPL'd programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most importantly, you must provide some sort of roadmap that allows
|
|
|
|
|
technically sophisticated users to build your software. This can be
|
|
|
|
|
complicated in an embedded environment. If your developers use scripts to
|
|
|
|
|
control the entire compilation and installation procedure, then you can
|
|
|
|
|
simply provide those scripts to users along with the sources they act
|
|
|
|
|
upon. Sometimes, however, scripts were never written (e.g., the
|
|
|
|
|
information on how to build the binaries is locked up in the mind of your
|
|
|
|
|
``build guru''). In that case, we recommend that you write out build
|
|
|
|
|
instructions in a natural language as a detailed, step-by-step {\sc
|
|
|
|
|
readme}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what you offer, you need to give those who receive source a
|
|
|
|
|
clear path from your sources to binaries similar to the ones you ship. If
|
|
|
|
|
you ship a firmware (kernel plus filesystem), and the filesystem contains
|
|
|
|
|
binaries of GPL'd programs, then you should provide whatever is necessary
|
|
|
|
|
to enable a reasonably skilled user to build any given GPL'd source
|
|
|
|
|
program (and modified versions thereof), and replace the given binary in
|
|
|
|
|
your filesystem. If the kernel is Linux, then the users must have the
|
|
|
|
|
instructions to do the same with the kernel. The best way to achieve this
|
|
|
|
|
is to make available to your users whatever scripts or process your
|
|
|
|
|
engineers would use to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are the general details for how installation instructions work.
|
|
|
|
|
Details about what differs when the work is licensed under LGPL is
|
|
|
|
|
discussed in \S~\ref{lgpl}, and specific details that are unique to
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3's installation instructions are in \S~\ref{user-products}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\subsection{What About the Compiler?}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the compiler
|
|
|
|
|
used to build the software. While companies are encouraged to make it as
|
|
|
|
|
easy as possible for their users to build the sources, inclusion of the
|
|
|
|
|
compiler itself is not normally considered mandatory. The Corresponding
|
|
|
|
|
Source definition -- both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 -- has not been typically
|
|
|
|
|
read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles,
|
|
|
|
|
build scripts, and packaging scripts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonetheless, in the interest of goodwill and the spirit of the GPL, most
|
|
|
|
|
companies do provide the compiler itself when they are able, particularly
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
when the compiler is based on GCC\@ or another copylefted compiler. If you have
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a GCC-based system, it is your prerogative to redistribute that GCC
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
version (binaries plus sources) to your customers. We in the software freedom
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
community encourage you to do this, since it often makes it easier for
|
|
|
|
|
users to exercise their software freedom. However, if you chose to take
|
|
|
|
|
this recommendation, ensure that your GCC distribution is itself
|
|
|
|
|
compliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
|
|
|
|
|
software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider
|
|
|
|
|
the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be
|
|
|
|
|
acquired as information that \emph{must} be provided as part of the
|
|
|
|
|
Corresponding Source. This information is essential to anyone who wishes
|
|
|
|
|
to produce a binary. It is not the intent of the GPL to require you to
|
|
|
|
|
distribute third-party software tools to your customer (provided the tools
|
|
|
|
|
themselves are not based on the GPL'd software shipped), but we do believe
|
|
|
|
|
it requires that you give the user all the essential non-proprietary facts
|
|
|
|
|
that you had at your disposal to build the software. Therefore, if you
|
|
|
|
|
choose not to distribute the compiler, you should include a {\sc readme}
|
|
|
|
|
about where you got it, what version it was, and who to contact to acquire
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
it, regardless of whether your compiler is Free Software, proprietary, or
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
internally developed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Best Practices and Corresponding Source}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\S~\ref{best-practices} and \S~\ref{corresponding-source} above are
|
|
|
|
|
closely related. If you follow the best practices outlined above, you
|
|
|
|
|
will find that preparing your Corresponding Source release is an easier
|
|
|
|
|
task, perhaps even a trivial one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, the enforcement process itself has historically been useful to
|
|
|
|
|
software development teams. Development on a deadline can lead
|
|
|
|
|
organizations to cut corners in a way that negatively impacts its
|
|
|
|
|
development processes. We have frequently been told by violators that
|
|
|
|
|
they experience difficulty when determining the exact source for a binary
|
|
|
|
|
in production (in some cases because their ``build guru'' quit during the
|
|
|
|
|
release cycle). When management rushes a development team to ship a
|
|
|
|
|
release, they are less likely to keep release sources tagged and build
|
|
|
|
|
systems well documented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We suggest that, if contacted about a violation, product builders use GPL
|
|
|
|
|
enforcement as an opportunity to improve their development practices. No
|
|
|
|
|
developer would argue that their system is better for having a mysterious
|
|
|
|
|
build system and no source tracking. Address these issues by installing a
|
|
|
|
|
revision system, telling your developers to use it, and requiring your
|
|
|
|
|
build guru to document his or her work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-11 16:40:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Non-Technical Compliance Issues}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, the overwhelming majority of compliance issues are, in fact,
|
|
|
|
|
either procedural or technical. Thus, the primary material in this chapter
|
|
|
|
|
so far has covered those issues. However, a few compliance issues do require
|
|
|
|
|
more direct consideration of a legal situation. This portion guide does not
|
|
|
|
|
consider those in detail, as a careful reading of the earlier chapters of
|
|
|
|
|
Part~\ref{gpl-lgpl-part} shows various places where legal considerations are
|
|
|
|
|
necessary for considering compliance activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, specific compliance issues related to
|
|
|
|
|
\hyperref[GPLv2s7]{GPLv2\S7}, \hyperref[GPLv3s7]{GPLv3\S7}, and
|
|
|
|
|
\hyperref[GPLv3s7]{GPLv3\S11} demand a more traditional approach to legal
|
|
|
|
|
license compliance. Of course, such analysis and consideration can be
|
|
|
|
|
complicated, and some are considered in the enforcement case studies that
|
|
|
|
|
follow in the next part. However, compliance issues related to such sections
|
|
|
|
|
are not rare, and, as is typical, no specific training is available for
|
|
|
|
|
dealing with extremely rare occurrences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\section{Self-Assessment of Compliance}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most companies that adopt copylefted software believe they have complied.
|
|
|
|
|
Humans usually have difficult admitting their own mistakes, particularly
|
|
|
|
|
systematic ones. Therefore, perhaps the most important necessary step to
|
|
|
|
|
stay in compliance is a company's regular evaluation of their own compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, exercise a request CCS for all copylefted works from all your upstream
|
|
|
|
|
providers of software and of components embedding software. Then, perform
|
|
|
|
|
your own CCS check on this material first, and verify that it meets the
|
|
|
|
|
requirements. This tutorial presents later a case study of a CEGEO's CCS
|
|
|
|
|
check in \S~\ref{pristine-example}, which you can emulate when examining
|
|
|
|
|
their own CCS\@.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, measure all copyleft compliance from the position of the
|
|
|
|
|
users\footnote{Realizing of course that user very well may not be your own
|
|
|
|
|
customer.} downstream from you exercising their rights under GPL\@. Have
|
|
|
|
|
those users received notice of the copylefted software included in your
|
|
|
|
|
product? Is CCS available to the users easily (preferably by automated
|
|
|
|
|
means)? Ask yourself these questions frequently. If you cannot answer these
|
|
|
|
|
questions with certainty in the positive, dig deeper and modify your process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avoid ``compliance industry'' marketing distractions and concentrate on the
|
|
|
|
|
copylefted software you already know is in your product. Historically, the
|
|
|
|
|
risk from a copylefted code snippet that some programmer dropped in your
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
proprietary product careless of the consequences is a problem far more
|
2014-11-11 16:40:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
infrequent and less difficult to resolve. Efficient management of the risks
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
of higher concern lies in making sure you can provide, for example, precisely
|
2014-11-11 16:40:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
CCS for a copy of Coreboot, the kernel named Linux, Busybox, or GNU tar that
|
|
|
|
|
you included in a product your company shipped two years ago than in the risk
|
|
|
|
|
of 10 lines of GPL'd Java code an engineer accidentally pasted into the
|
|
|
|
|
source of your ERP system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, reject the ``compliance industry'' suggestions that code scanners find
|
|
|
|
|
and help solve fundamental compliance problems. Consider how CEGEO's tend to
|
|
|
|
|
use code scanners. FOSSology is indeed an important part of a violation
|
|
|
|
|
investigation, but such is the last step and catches only some (usually
|
|
|
|
|
minor) licensing notice problems. Thus, code scanners can help solve minor
|
|
|
|
|
compliance problems once you have resolved the major ones. Code scanners
|
|
|
|
|
do not manage risk.
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{When The Letter Comes}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, many GPL violators ignore their obligations until they are
|
|
|
|
|
contacted by a copyright holder or the lawyer of a copyright holder. You
|
|
|
|
|
should certainly contact your own lawyer if you have received a letter
|
|
|
|
|
alleging that you have infringed copyrights that were licensed to you
|
|
|
|
|
under the GPL\@. This section outlines a typical enforcement case and
|
|
|
|
|
provides some guidelines for response. These discussions are
|
|
|
|
|
generalizations and do not all apply to every alleged violation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Communication Is Key}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPL violations are typically only escalated when a company ignores the
|
|
|
|
|
copyright holder's initial communication or fails to work toward timely
|
2014-03-21 01:40:25 +00:00
|
|
|
|
compliance. Accused violators should respond very promptly to the
|
|
|
|
|
initial request. As the process continues, violators should follow up weekly with the
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
copyright holders to make sure everyone agrees on targets and deadlines
|
|
|
|
|
for resolving the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ensure that any staff who might receive communications regarding alleged
|
|
|
|
|
GPL violations understands how to channel the communication appropriately
|
|
|
|
|
within your organization. Often, initial contact is addressed for general
|
|
|
|
|
correspondence (e.g., by mail to corporate headquarters or by e-mail to
|
|
|
|
|
general informational or support-related addresses). Train the staff that
|
|
|
|
|
processes such communications to escalate them to someone with authority
|
|
|
|
|
to take action. An unknowledgable response to such an inquiry (e.g., from
|
|
|
|
|
a first-level technical support person) can cause negotiations to fail
|
|
|
|
|
prematurely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer promptly by multiple means (paper letter, telephone call, and
|
|
|
|
|
email), even if your response merely notifies the sender that you are
|
|
|
|
|
investigating the situation and will respond by a certain date. Do not
|
|
|
|
|
let the conversation lapse until the situation is fully resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
Proactively follow up with synchronous communication means to be sure
|
|
|
|
|
communications sent by non-reliable means (such as email) were received.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Remember that the software freedom community generally values open communication and
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
cooperation, and these values extend to GPL enforcement. You will
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
generally find that software freedom developers and their lawyers are willing to
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
have a reasonable dialogue and will work with you to resolve a violation
|
|
|
|
|
once you open the channels of communication in a friendly way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assume preparation on the complainant’s side. The organizations
|
|
|
|
|
traditionally bringing complaints of copyleft non-compliance all
|
|
|
|
|
fully investigate and verify complaints referred to them before making
|
|
|
|
|
contact with apparently non-complying parties. Complainants will be
|
|
|
|
|
prepared to substantiate the facts on which their complaint is based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let engineers be a part of the process. The most time-consuming and
|
|
|
|
|
difficult part of resolving most compliance matters, in our experience,
|
|
|
|
|
is verifying that source code is indeed complete and
|
|
|
|
|
corresponding. Without direct contact between software engineers on both
|
|
|
|
|
sides, the resolution of the technical issues involved in demonstrating
|
|
|
|
|
that the binary distributed was built from the source provided is likely
|
|
|
|
|
to be tortuous, expensive, and potentially tense. Counsel are
|
|
|
|
|
understandably reluctant to expose their client’s employees to direct
|
|
|
|
|
inquiry from potentially hostile parties. But facilitated exchanges of
|
|
|
|
|
information among software engineers communicating on technical subjects
|
|
|
|
|
shortens the time to resolution, substantially reduces the cost of
|
|
|
|
|
reaching resolution, and prevents unnecessary escalation due to mutual
|
|
|
|
|
misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use compliance discussions to improve relationships. Development
|
|
|
|
|
communities make software to benefit users, which includes you. When you
|
|
|
|
|
use copylefted community software in your products, you are an important
|
|
|
|
|
and valuable part of the commons, from the developers’ point of
|
|
|
|
|
view. Resolving a compliance matter is an occasion to strengthen your
|
|
|
|
|
relationship to the commons, by increasing communication between your
|
|
|
|
|
engineers and the project whose output you use for business benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: END
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Termination}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-21 16:50:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Many redistributors overlook the GPL's termination provision (GPLv2~\S~4 and
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
GPLv3~\S~8). Under v2, violators forfeit their rights to redistribute and
|
|
|
|
|
modify the GPL'd software until those rights are explicitly reinstated by
|
|
|
|
|
the copyright holder. In contrast, v3 allows violators to rapidly resolve
|
|
|
|
|
some violations without consequence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have redistributed an application under GPLv2\footnote{This applies
|
|
|
|
|
to all programs licensed to you under only GPLv2 (``GPLv2-only'').
|
|
|
|
|
However, most so-called GPLv2 programs are actually distributed with
|
|
|
|
|
permission to redistribute under GPLv2 \emph{or any later version of the
|
|
|
|
|
GPL} (``GPLv2-or-later''). In the latter cases, the redistributor can
|
|
|
|
|
choose to redistribute under GPLv2, GPLv3, GPLv2-or-later or even
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3-or-later. Where the redistributor has chosen v2 explicitly, the
|
|
|
|
|
v2 termination provision will always apply. If the redistributor has
|
|
|
|
|
chosen v3, the v3 termination provision will always apply. If the
|
|
|
|
|
redistributor has chosen GPLv2-or-later, then the redistributor may want
|
|
|
|
|
to narrow to GPLv3-only upon violation, to take advantage of the
|
|
|
|
|
termination provisions in v3.}, but have violated the terms of GPLv2,
|
|
|
|
|
you must request a reinstatement of rights from the copyright holders
|
|
|
|
|
before making further distributions, or else cease distribution and
|
|
|
|
|
modification of the software forever. Different copyright holders
|
|
|
|
|
condition reinstatement upon different requirements, and these
|
|
|
|
|
requirements can be (and often are) wholly independent of the GPL\@. The
|
|
|
|
|
terms of your reinstatement will depend upon what you negotiate with the
|
|
|
|
|
copyright holder of the GPL'd program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since your rights under GPLv2 terminate automatically upon your initial
|
|
|
|
|
violation, \emph{all your subsequent distributions} are violations and
|
|
|
|
|
infringements of copyright. Therefore, even if you resolve a violation on
|
|
|
|
|
your own, you must still seek a reinstatement of rights from the copyright
|
|
|
|
|
holders whose licenses you violated, lest you remain liable for
|
|
|
|
|
infringement for even compliant distributions made subsequent to the
|
|
|
|
|
initial violation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3 is more lenient. If you have distributed only v3-licensed programs,
|
|
|
|
|
you may be eligible under v3~\S~8 for automatic reinstatement of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
You are eligible for automatic reinstatement when:
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
\item you correct the violation and are not contacted by a copyright
|
|
|
|
|
holder about the violation within sixty days after the correction, or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item you receive, from a copyright holder, your first-ever contact
|
|
|
|
|
regarding a GPL violation, and you correct that violation within thirty
|
|
|
|
|
days of receipt of copyright holder's notice.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to these permanent reinstatements provided under v3, violators
|
|
|
|
|
who voluntarily correct their violation also receive provisional
|
|
|
|
|
permission to continue distributing until they receive contact from the
|
|
|
|
|
copyright holder. If sixty days pass without contact, that reinstatement
|
|
|
|
|
becomes permanent. Nonetheless, you should be prepared to cease
|
|
|
|
|
distribution during those initial sixty days should you receive a
|
|
|
|
|
termination notice from the copyright holder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that much discussion of v3 has focused on its so-called more
|
|
|
|
|
complicated requirements, it should be noted that v3 is, in this regard,
|
|
|
|
|
more favorable to violators than v2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 12:52:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
However, note that most Linux-based systems typically include some software
|
|
|
|
|
licensed under GPLv2-only, and thus the copyright holders have withheld
|
|
|
|
|
permission to redistribute under terms of GPLv3. In larger aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
distributions which include GPLv2-only works (such as the kernel named
|
|
|
|
|
Linux), redistributors must operate as if termination is immediate and
|
|
|
|
|
permanent, since the technological remove of GPLv2-only works from the larger
|
|
|
|
|
distribution requires much more engineering work than the negotiation
|
|
|
|
|
required to seek restoration of rights for distribution under GPLv2-only
|
|
|
|
|
after permanent termination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Standard Requests}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we noted above, different copyright holders have different requirements
|
|
|
|
|
for reinstating a violator's distribution rights. Upon violation, you no
|
|
|
|
|
longer have a license under the GPL\@. Copyright holders can therefore
|
|
|
|
|
set their own requirements outside the license before reinstatement of
|
|
|
|
|
rights. We have collected below a list of reinstatement demands that
|
|
|
|
|
copyright holders often require.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\item {\bf Compliance on all Free Software copyrights}. Copyright holders of Free Software
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
often want a company to demonstrate compliance for all GPL'd software in
|
|
|
|
|
a distribution, not just their own. A copyright holder may refuse to
|
|
|
|
|
reinstate your right to distribute one program unless and until you
|
2014-03-21 16:50:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
comply with the licenses of all Free Software in your distribution.
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item {\bf Notification to past recipients}. Users to whom you previously
|
|
|
|
|
distributed non-compliant software should receive a communication
|
|
|
|
|
(email, letter, bill insert, etc.) indicating the violation, describing
|
2014-03-21 16:50:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
their rights under the GPL, and informing them how to obtain a gratis source
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
distribution. If a customer list does not exist (such as in reseller
|
|
|
|
|
situations), an alternative form of notice may be required (such as a
|
|
|
|
|
magazine advertisement).
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\item {\bf Appointment of a GPL Compliance Officer.} The software freedom community
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
values personal accountability when things go wrong. Copyright holders
|
|
|
|
|
often require that you name someone within the violating company
|
2014-03-21 16:50:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
officially responsible for Free Software license compliance, and that this
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
individual serve as the key public contact for the community when
|
|
|
|
|
compliance concerns arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item {\bf Periodic Compliance Reports.} Many copyright holders wish to
|
|
|
|
|
monitor future compliance for some period of time after the violation.
|
|
|
|
|
For some period, your company may be required to send regular reports on
|
|
|
|
|
how many distributions of binary and source have occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are just a few possible requirements for reinstatement. In the
|
|
|
|
|
context of a GPL violation, and particularly under v2's termination
|
|
|
|
|
provision, the copyright holder may have a range of requests in exchange
|
|
|
|
|
for reinstatement of rights. These software developers are talented
|
|
|
|
|
professionals from whose work your company has benefited. Indeed, you are
|
|
|
|
|
unlikely to find a better value or more generous license terms for similar
|
|
|
|
|
software elsewhere. Treat the copyright holders with the same respect you
|
|
|
|
|
treat your corporate partners and collaborators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Special Topics in Compliance}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several other issues that are less common, but also relevant in
|
|
|
|
|
a GPL compliance situation. To those who face them, they tend to be of
|
|
|
|
|
particular interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
|
|
|
|
|
Non-compliance with GPLv3 in the
|
|
|
|
|
distribution of Javascript on the Web is becoming more frequent
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: END
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{LGPL Compliance}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{lgpl}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPL compliance and LGPL compliance mostly involve the same issues. As we
|
|
|
|
|
discussed in \S~\ref{derivative-works}, questions of modified versions of
|
|
|
|
|
software are highly fact-dependant and cannot be easily addressed in any
|
|
|
|
|
overview document. The LGPL adds some additional complexity to the
|
|
|
|
|
analysis. Namely, the various LGPL versions permit proprietary licensing
|
|
|
|
|
of certain types of modified versions. These issues are well beyond the
|
|
|
|
|
scope of this document, but as a rule of thumb, once you have determined
|
|
|
|
|
(in accordance with LGPLv3) what part of the work is the ``Application''
|
|
|
|
|
and what portions of the source are ``Minimal Corresponding Source'', then
|
|
|
|
|
you can usually proceed to follow the GPL compliance rules that we
|
|
|
|
|
discussed, replacing our discussion of ``Corresponding Source'' with
|
|
|
|
|
``Minimal Corresponding Source''.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LGPL also requires that you provide a mechanism to combine the Application
|
|
|
|
|
with a modified version of the library, and outlines some options for
|
|
|
|
|
this. Also, the license of the whole work must permit ``reverse
|
|
|
|
|
engineering for debugging such modifications'' to the library. Therefore,
|
|
|
|
|
you should take care that the EULA used for the Application does not
|
|
|
|
|
contradict this permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: integrate
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Under the terms of LGPL, they must also refrain from license terms on works
|
|
|
|
|
based on the licensed work that prohibit replacement of the licensed
|
|
|
|
|
components of the larger non-LGPL’d work, or prohibit decompilation or
|
|
|
|
|
reverse engineering in order to enhance or fix bugs in the LGPL’d components.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Section 2(a) states that if a licensed work is a software library (defined in
|
|
|
|
|
\S0 as ``a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be
|
|
|
|
|
conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of those
|
|
|
|
|
functions and data) to form executables'') permission is given to distribute
|
|
|
|
|
modified versions only if those versions are themselves libraries. LGPLv2.1
|
|
|
|
|
code can therefore not be compliantly taken from its context in a library and
|
|
|
|
|
placed in a non-library modified version or work based on the work. Section 6
|
|
|
|
|
does not provide an exception for this rule: a combination may be made of a
|
|
|
|
|
modified version of an LGPL’d library with other code, but the LGPL’d code
|
|
|
|
|
must continue to be structured as a library, and to that library the terms of
|
|
|
|
|
the license continue to apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: END
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{Upstream Providers}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{upstream}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With ever-increasing frequency, software development (particularly for
|
|
|
|
|
embedded devices) is outsourced to third parties. If you rely on an
|
|
|
|
|
upstream provider for your software, note that you \emph{cannot ignore
|
|
|
|
|
your GPL compliance requirements} simply because someone else packaged
|
|
|
|
|
the software that you distribute. If you redistribute GPL'd software
|
|
|
|
|
(which you do, whenever you ship a device with your upstream's software in
|
|
|
|
|
it), you are bound by the terms of the GPL\@. No distribution (including
|
|
|
|
|
redistribution) is permissible absent adherence to the license terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, you should introduce a due diligence process into your software
|
|
|
|
|
acquisition plans. This is much like the software-oriented
|
|
|
|
|
recommendations we make in \S~\ref{best-practices}. Implementing
|
|
|
|
|
practices to ensure that you are aware of what software is in your devices
|
|
|
|
|
can only improve your general business processes. You should ask a clear
|
|
|
|
|
list of questions of all your upstream providers and make sure the answers
|
|
|
|
|
are complete and accurate. The following are examples of questions you
|
|
|
|
|
should ask:
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item What are all the licenses that cover the software in this device?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item From which upstream vendors, be they companies or individuals, did
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\emph{you} receive your software before distributing it to us?
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item What are your GPL compliance procedures?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item If there is GPL'd software in your distribution, we will be
|
|
|
|
|
redistributors of this GPL'd software. What mechanisms do you have in
|
|
|
|
|
place to aid us with compliance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\item If we follow your recommended compliance procedures, will you
|
|
|
|
|
formally indemnify us in case we are nonetheless found to be in
|
|
|
|
|
violation of the GPL?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This last point is particularly important. Many GPL enforcements are
|
|
|
|
|
escalated because of petty finger-pointing between the distributor and its
|
|
|
|
|
upstream. In our experience, agreements regarding GPL compliance issues
|
|
|
|
|
and procedures are rarely negotiated up front. However, when they are,
|
|
|
|
|
violations are resolved much more smoothly (at least from the point of
|
|
|
|
|
view of the redistributor).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the cost of potential violations in your acquisition process.
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Using Free Software allows software vendors to reduce costs significantly, but be
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
wary of vendors who have done so without regard for the licenses. If your
|
|
|
|
|
vendor's costs seem ``too good to be true,'' you may ultimately bear the
|
|
|
|
|
burden of the vendor's inattention to GPL compliance. Ask the right
|
|
|
|
|
questions, demand an account of your vendors' compliance procedures, and
|
|
|
|
|
seek indemnity from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In such instances it is advisable that you exercise your own rights as a user
|
2014-11-11 00:14:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
to request C\&CS for all the GPL programs that your suppliers provided to you,
|
|
|
|
|
preferably in an automated process. Once you receive such C\&CS, passing it
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
along with your product will ensure your compliance with the license.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% FIXME-URGENT: Needs a new section
|
|
|
|
|
% \section{Mergers and Acquisitions}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GPLv3] Section 10 also clarifies that in business acquisitions, whether by
|
|
|
|
|
sale of assets or transfers of control, the acquiring party is downstream
|
|
|
|
|
from the party acquired. This results in new automatic downstream licenses
|
|
|
|
|
from upstream copyright holders, licenses to all modifications made by the
|
|
|
|
|
acquired business, and rights to source code provisioning for the
|
|
|
|
|
now-downstream purchaser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-11 00:14:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
In our experience, the process whereby these matters are adjusted in most M\&A
|
Incorporate useful text from a third party work.
Software Freedom Law Center, a small law firm specializing in Open
Source, recently published its so-called "Guide to GPL Compliance,
Second Edition":
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html
The Firm's document is substantially less comprehensive than this one;
however, their document contained a few phrases and paragraphs that
seemed useful and accurate. This commit incorporates the useful
material from that work into this one (as permitted by the CC BY-SA 4.0
license, which the Software Freedom Law Center applied to their work).
The useful sections have been pasted without proper textual integration
into the appropriate sections of this tutorial. A few are currently
commented out entirely and marked with appropriate FIXME's. Meanwhile,
the text that seems immediately useful is *not* commented out, and is
marked with "FIXME-URGENT". Additional work is now required to
integrate the new text properly into this tutorial.
Careful readers who compare this commit with The Firm's document will
find that I passed on inclusion of some seemingly useful material.
Unfortunately, The Firm's text contained some inaccuracies, and frames
discussion primarily from a for-profit perspective. More disturbingly,
a few statements even directly contradicted the FSF's stated policies.
Of course, The Firm clearly claims "this document does not express the
views, intentions, policy, or legal analysis of any SFLC clients or
client organizations", but I could not in good conscience adopt, as the
official advice in this tutorial, any text that conflicts with the FSF's
policies, nor will I incorporate any puffery that subtly kowtows to
for-profit corporate interests.
Nevertheless, given The Firm's perceived stature, I briefly considered
including policy-conflicting statements, attributing them as alternative
third-party opinions; many of the FSF's own opinions were already
incorporated in that manner earlier this year. Indeed, I will not prima
facie reject future patches that integrate such statements naturally for
this tutorial. However, I feel that the didactic value of including The
Firm's attributed dissenting opinions in this tutorial does not outweigh
my editing effort required for such additional textual integration.
Regarding Software Freedom Law Center's copyrights included herein,
I took the following specific actions to comply with CC By SA 4.0:
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): This log message indicates Software Freedom Law Center
as the source of the material herein committed.
§3(a)(1)(a)(i): Copyright notices at the top level of the document,
as well as those in individual parts, are updated to
include the 2014 copyright notice from the Software
Freedom Law Center.
§3(a)(1)(a)(ii-v): The project already referred to and included a copy
§3(b)(1): of CC BY SA 4.0 International and its URL.
§3(a)(2): The attribution information is fully included in
this Git repository.
§3(a)(3): I and this project have received no such request.
§3(b)(1): The license of the larger work was already
CC BY SA 4.0 International.
§3(b)(3): No such conditions are imposed.
2014-11-10 21:21:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
situations are ludicrously expensive and inefficient. A simple waiver and
|
|
|
|
|
release of all claims to GPL compliance against the purchased entity by the
|
|
|
|
|
purchaser, issued before closure, removes the problem. If the purchasing
|
|
|
|
|
entity has adequate software governance systems in place, all software
|
|
|
|
|
acquired in the course of the entity transaction is input to the standard
|
|
|
|
|
governance processes for acquired software, and downstream compliance by the
|
|
|
|
|
new merged entity is automatically handled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: END
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\section{User Products and Installation Information}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\label{user-products}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3 requires you to provide ``Installation Information'' when v3
|
|
|
|
|
software is distributed in a ``User Product.'' During the drafting of v3,
|
|
|
|
|
the debate over this requirement was contentious. However, the provision
|
|
|
|
|
as it appears in the final license is reasonable and easy to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you put GPLv3'd software into a User Product (as defined by the
|
|
|
|
|
license) and \emph{you} have the ability to install modified versions onto
|
|
|
|
|
that device, you must provide information that makes it possible for the
|
|
|
|
|
user to install functioning, modified versions of the software. Note that
|
|
|
|
|
if no one, including you, can install a modified version, this provision
|
|
|
|
|
does not apply. For example, if the software is burned onto an
|
|
|
|
|
non-field-upgradable ROM chip, and the only way that chip can be upgraded
|
|
|
|
|
is by producing a new one via a hardware factory process, then it is
|
|
|
|
|
acceptable that the users cannot electronically upgrade the software
|
|
|
|
|
themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, you are permitted to refuse support service, warranties, and
|
|
|
|
|
software updates to a user who has installed a modified version. You may
|
|
|
|
|
even forbid network access to devices that behave out of specification due
|
|
|
|
|
to such modifications. Indeed, this permission fits clearly with usual
|
|
|
|
|
industry practice. While it is impossible to provide a device that is
|
|
|
|
|
completely unmodifiable\footnote{Consider that the iPhone, a device
|
|
|
|
|
designed primarily to restrict users' freedom to modify it, was unlocked
|
|
|
|
|
and modified within 48 hours of its release.}, users are generally on
|
|
|
|
|
notice that they risk voiding their warranties and losing their update and
|
|
|
|
|
support services when they make modifications.\footnote{A popular t-shirt
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
in the software freedom community reads: ``I void warranties.''. Our community is
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
well-known for modifying products with full knowledge of the
|
|
|
|
|
consequences. GPLv3's ``Installation Instructions'' section merely
|
|
|
|
|
confirms that reality, and makes sure GPL rights can be fully exercised,
|
|
|
|
|
even if users exercise those rights at their own peril.}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPLv3 is in many ways better for distributors who seek some degree of
|
|
|
|
|
device lock-down. Technical processes are always found for subverting any
|
|
|
|
|
lock-down; pursuing it is a losing battle regardless. With GPLv3, unlike
|
|
|
|
|
with GPLv2, the license gives you clear provisions that you can rely on
|
|
|
|
|
when you are forced to cut off support, service or warranty for a customer
|
|
|
|
|
who has chosen to modify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-10 23:56:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% FIXME-URGENT: integrate, and rewrite so it doesn't laud behavior that is
|
|
|
|
|
% ultimately problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
\section{FIXME}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
companies have often formed beneficial consulting or employment relationships
|
|
|
|
|
with project developers they first encountered through compliance
|
|
|
|
|
inquiries. In some cases, working together to alter the mode of use of the
|
|
|
|
|
project’s code in the company’s products was an explicit element in dispute
|
|
|
|
|
resolution. More often, the communication channels opened in the course of
|
|
|
|
|
the inquiry served other and more fruitful purposes later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%FIXME-URGENT: END
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-20 17:46:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Conclusion}
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPL compliance need not be an onerous process. Historically, struggles
|
|
|
|
|
have been the result of poor development methodologies and communications,
|
|
|
|
|
rather than any unexpected application of the GPL's source code disclosure
|
|
|
|
|
requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance is straightforward when the entirety of your enterprise is
|
|
|
|
|
well-informed and well-coordinated. The receptionists should know how to
|
|
|
|
|
route a GPL source request or accusation of infringement. The lawyers
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
should know the basic provisions of Free Software licenses and your source
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
disclosure requirements, and should explain those details to the software
|
|
|
|
|
developers. The software developers should use a version control system
|
|
|
|
|
that allows them to associate versions of source with distributed
|
|
|
|
|
binaries, have a well-documented build process that anyone skilled in the
|
|
|
|
|
art can understand, and inform the lawyers when they bring in new
|
|
|
|
|
software. Managers should build systems and procedures that keep everyone
|
|
|
|
|
on target. With these practices in place, any organization can comply
|
|
|
|
|
with the GPL without serious effort, and receive the substantial benefits
|
2014-03-20 20:08:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
of good citizenship in the software freedom community, and lots of great code
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
ready-made for their products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\vfill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% LocalWords: redistributors NeXT's Slashdot Welte gpl ISC embedders BusyBox
|
|
|
|
|
% LocalWords: someone's downloadable subdirectory subdirectories filesystem
|
2014-04-03 00:57:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
% LocalWords: roadmap README upstream's Ravicher's FOSSology readme CDs iPhone
|
compliance-guide.tex was originally downloaded from the following URL:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.tex
Since I am herein committing an Adaptation of this compliance-guide.tex work
(this commit includes a one-line change made from the version as downloaded
above), this is now an Adaptation as defined by CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §1(a).
I am thus hereby permitted, per CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii), to relicense
this work under CC-By-SA-4.0, because CC-By-SA has the same License Elements
as CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported. (Therefore, in this case, §4(b)(ii) defines the
"Applicable License" as CC-By-SA-4.0.)
Specifically, the following license text appears in compliance-guide.tex:
Copyright \copyright{} 2008, Software Freedom Law Center. Licensed
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode}{CC-BY-SA
3.0 unported}.
Here are the actions I took to comply with CC-By-SA-3.0-Unported §4(b)(ii):
§4(b)(I): Since the Applicable License is CC-By-SA-4.0, I've now included
the URI and reference to the copy of CC-By-SA-4.0 in this
repository as well.
§4(b)(II): No additional conditions are imposed.
§4(b)(III): This term is confusing. It claims I must "keep intact all
notices that refer to the Applicable License". Of course, the
Applicable License is now the new version of the license, so it
seems reasonable to interpret this clause as to allow, and
almost instruct, a change in reference to the 3.0 license to
the 4.0 license. However, that's not explicitly allowed for in
this section, but I can't come to any reasonable interpretation
of the clause other than updating the notice to refer to the
new license.
§4(b)(IV): No technological measures are imposed.
2014-02-15 23:24:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
% LocalWords: makefiles violator's
|