Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge various texts to a coherent section on "modify" & internationalization.

Browse source 
Ultimately, some of the text related to "modify" made good seed material to
explain the internationalization motivations of GPLv3.  That text is moved
and expanded, and the various parts about the "modify" definition are merged
together into one subsection.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-19 19:17:52 -04:00
parent 769edf2a7b
commit 07a02b0b1c
1 changed files with 50 additions and 65 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

115
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -2241,6 +2241,18 @@ shorter GPL\@. Ultimately, the FSF gave priority to making GPLv3 a better
copyleft in the spirit of past GPL's. Obsession for concision should never
trump software freedom.
The FSF had many different, important goals in seeking to upgrade to GPLv3.
However, one important goal that is often lost in the discussion of policy
minutia is a rather simple but important issue. Namely, FSF sought to assure
that GPLv3 was more easily internationalized than GPLv2. In particular, the
FSF sought to ease interpretation of GPL in other countries by replacement of
USA-centric\footnote{See Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} of this tutorial for
a brief discussion about non-USA copyright systems.} copyright phrases and
wording with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior rather
than specific statue. As can be seen in the section-by-section discussion of
GPLv3 that follows, nearly every section had changes related to issues of
internationalization.
\section{GPLv3~\S0: Giving In On ``Defined Terms''}
One of lawyers' most common complaints about GPLv2 is that defined terms in
@ -2261,76 +2273,42 @@ adds one. Most of these defined terms are somewhat straightforward and bring
forward better worded definitions from GPLv2. Herein, this tutorial
discusses a few of the new ones.
% FIXME: it's now five, ``Modify''
GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of five new terms not found in any form in
GPLv2: ``modify'' ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and
``Appropriate Legal Notices''.
GPLv3~\S0 includes definitions of four new terms not found in any form in
GPLv2: ``covered work'', ``propagate'', ``convey'', and ``Appropriate Legal
Notices''.
\subsection{Modify and the Work Based on the Program}
% FIXME: modify needs more discussion
We have made further improvements to the important definitions of ``modify''
and ``based on,'' providing a complete definition of ``modify'' that refers
to basic copyright rights, and using this definition of ``modify'' to define
``modified version of'' and ``work based on,'' now presented as synonyms.
% FIXME: Transition, GPLv2 ref needed.
Although the definition of ``work based on the Program'' made use of a legal
term of art, ``derivative work,'' peculiar to USA copyright law, we did not
believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated
with the use of the term ``distribution.'' After all, differently-labeled
GPLv2 included a defined term, ``work based on the Program'', but also used
the term ``modify'' and ``based on'' throughout the license. GPLv2's ``work
based on the Program'' definition made use of a legal term of art,
``derivative work'', which is peculiar to USA copyright law. However,
ironically, the most criticism of USA-specific legal terminology in GPLv2's
``work based on the Program'' definition historically came not primarily from
readers outside the USA, but from those within it\footnote{The FSF noted in
that it did not generally agree with these views, and expressed puzzlement
by the energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many
other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless,
the FSF argued that it made sense to eliminate usage of local copyright
terminology to good effect.}. Admittedly, even though differently-labeled
concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright
law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in
scope and breadth from the USA derivative work was simply a consequence of
varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work.
law systems, these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in scope
and breadth from the USA derivative work.
%FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote?
The goal and intention of GPLv2 was always to cover all rights governed by
relevant copyright law, in the USA and elsewhere. GPLv3 therefore takes the
task of internationalizing the license further by removing references to
derivative works and by providing a more globally useful definition. The new
definition returns to the common elements of copyright law. Copyright
holders of works of software have the exclusive right to form new works by
modification of the original --- a right that may be expressed in various
ways in different legal systems. GPLv3 operates to grant this right to
successive generations of users (particularly through the copyleft conditions
set forth in GPLv3~\S5, as described later in this tutorial in its
\S~\ref{GPLv3s5}). Here in GPLv3~\S0, ``modify'' refers to basic copyright
rights, and then this definition of ``modify'' is used to define ``modified
version of'' and ``work based on,'' as synonyms.
Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of
USA-specific legal terminology in the ``work based on the Program''
definition has come not primarily from readers outside the USA, but
from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology
licensing bar. They have argued that the definition of ``work based
on the Program'' effectively misstates what a derivative work is under
USA law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means,
to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable.
They have also asserted that it confounds the concepts of derivative
and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably,
to be neatly disjoint under USA law.
% FIXME: As above
We do not agree with these views, and we were long puzzled by the
energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many
other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL.
Nevertheless, we realized that here, too, we can eliminate usage of
local copyright terminology to good effect. Discussion of GPLv3 will
be improved by the avoidance of parochial debates over the
construction of terms in one imperfectly-drafted copyright statute.
Interpretation of the license in all countries will be made easier by
replacement of those terms with neutral terminology rooted in
description of behavior.
%FIXME: GPLv3, reword a bit.
Draft 2 therefore takes the task of internationalizing the license
further by removing references to derivative works and by providing a
more globally useful definition of a work ``based on'' another work.
We return to the basic principles of users' freedom and the common
elements of copyright law. Copyright holders of works of software
have the exclusive right to form new works by modification of the
original, a right that may be expressed in various ways in different
legal systems. The GPL operates to grant this right to successive
generations of users, particularly through the copyleft conditions set
forth in section 5 of GPLv3, which applies to the conveying of works
based on the Program. In section 0 we simply define a work based on
another work to mean ``any modified version for which permission is
necessary under applicable copyright law,'' without further qualifying
the nature of that permission, though we make clear that modification
includes the addition of material.\footnote{We have also removed the
paragraph in section 5 that makes reference to ``derivative or
collective works based on the Program.''}
%FIXME: transition
@ -2338,6 +2316,13 @@ While ``covered by this license'' is a phrase found in GPLv2, defining it
more complete in a single as ``covered work'' enables some of the wording in
GPLv3 to be simpler and clearer than its GPLv2 counterparts.
%FIXME: should we keep this? maybe a footnote?
%FIXME: GPLv3, reword a bit.
% FIXME: does propagate definition still work the same way in final draft?
The term ``propagate'' serves two purposes. First, ``propagate'' provides a