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

* Wrote material on GPL Sections 1 and 2 * Spell checked * Flushed out outline a bit

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2003-05-29 14:41:31 +00:00 committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent 5682a42c82
commit 163097cd2b
1 changed files with 253 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

265
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ restricted.
It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
software; today it is not so rare. Most End User Licensing Agreements software; today it is not so rare. Most End User Licensing Agreements
(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use. (EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use.
For example, some versions of Microsoft's Frontpage software prohibit use For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software prohibit use
of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for
Microsoft. Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to Microsoft. Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to
use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever. use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever.
@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ GPL\@. In this chapter, we consider the core terms: GPL \S\S 0--3. These
are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
how software freedom is respected. how software freedom is respected.
\section{GPL, \S 0: Freedom to Run} \section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
\S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by \S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
copyright law. It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright copyright law. It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
@ -594,7 +594,7 @@ system under which it is governed. Specifically, it states:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
\end{quote} \end{quote}
In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activites and all other In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities and all other
activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPL activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPL
(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}). This is (which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}). This is
very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ novel for the purpose of learning how to be a better programmer.
\medskip \medskip
Thus, the GPL protects users fair and uregulated use rights precisely by Thus, the GPL protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom
to run specifically by stating the following: to run specifically by stating the following:
\begin{quote} \begin{quote}
@ -625,15 +625,232 @@ Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
\medskip \medskip
The bulk of \S 0 not mentioned here gives definitions for other terms used The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
the Program''. The reason this definition is particular interesting is the Program''. The reason this definition is particular interesting is
that not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but the
because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
definition of ``derivative work''. In fact, it would be incorrect and
problematic if the GPL attempt to define this. A copyright license, in
fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This
matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.
\section{GPL, \S 1} It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear
and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative
software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not
even the GNU GPL -- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court
opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
\section{GPL, \S 2} \section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
exactly as it was received. This section is quite straightforward.
However, there are a few details worth noting here.
The phrase ``in any medium'' is important. This, for example, gives the
freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source
code. It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution. Some
vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on
the hard drive of a pre-installed computer. Any such redistribution media
is allowed.
Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned
specifically in \S 1. These are in some ways the most important part of
the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name. The GPL
always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the
software what its license is. The goal is to leave no reason that someone
would be surprised that the software she got was licensed under GPL\@.
Thus throughout the GPL, there are specific reference to the importance of
notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under
GPL.
Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do
not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the
proposed state-level UCITA bills (which have never obtained widespread
adoption), there are little or no implied warranties with software.
However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
Sections~\ref{GPLs11} and~\ref{GPLs12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
warranty disclaimers.)
Note finally that \S 1 begins to set forth the important defense of
commercial freedom. \S 1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may
provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
on making profit from Free Software redistribution.)
\section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
Many consider \S 2 the heart and soul of the GPL\@. For many, this is
where the ``magic'' happens that defends software freedom along the
distribution chain. I certainly agree that if GPL has a soul, this is
where it is. However, I argue that the heart is in fact contained in \SS
4--5 (see Section~\ref{GPLs4} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial). But, for
the moment, let us consider the soul.
\S 2 gives the only permission in the GPL that governs the modification
controls of copyright law. If someone modifies a GPL'ed program, she is
bound in the making those changes by \S 2. The goal here is to ensure
that the body of GPL'ed software, as it continues and develops, remains
Free as in freedom.
To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
redistribution modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
copying, as presented in \S 1. Therefore, the details of charging,
keeping copyright notices in tact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
here as well. However, there are three additional requirements.
The first (\S 2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such changes.
The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of marking changes,
or controlling the process of how changes get made. Primarily, \S 2(a)
seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions what path it took
to them. For some users, it is important to know that they are using the
canonical version of program, because while there are many advantages to
using a fork, there are a few disadvantages. Users should be informed the
historical context of the software version they use, so that they can make
proper support choices. Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic purpose ---
ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach to
understand the software.
\medskip
The second requirement (\S 2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody
the legal details of ``share and share alike''. These 46 words are
considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny. It is worth
the effort to carefully understand what each clause is saying, because \S
2(b) can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
In considering \S 2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to
derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''. Despite years of
education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
of GPL'ed software are required by the license to publish or otherwise
share their changes. On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
changes are never distributed. Indeed, the freedom to make private,
personal changes to software that are not shared should be protected and
defended\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf ethical}
obligation to redistributor changes that are generally useful, and often
encourages companies and individuals to do so. However, there is a
clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one {\bf
must} do.}.
Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in \S 0, in the
following text:
\begin{quote}
... that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof,
\end{quote}
Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative
work. If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
derived from'' the GPL'ed software, then the requirements of \S 2(b)
apply. The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the
modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution
of the work.
The final clause of \S 2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she is
distributing or publishing a work that is deemed a derivative work under
copyright law --- namely, the following:
\begin{quote}
[The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
\end{quote}
That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.
Consider each subpart carefully.
The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important
point that \S 2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is
worthy of a lengthy discussion here. As a programmer modifies a software
program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing ideas in the
tangible medium of electronic file storage. That programmer is indeed the
copyright holder of those new changes. However, those changes are part
and parcel to the original worked distributed to the programmer under
GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work affects the license of the
new whole derivative work.
% {\cal I}
\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}
\newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}
\newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}
It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'ed program (called \workg{}). The
license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent
work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of . However, when
\worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work that is the
combination of the two (called \gplusi{}). The copyright of this
derivative work, \gplusi{}, is jointly held by the original copyright
holder of each of the two works.
In this case, \S 2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be
distributed and copied. By default, under copyright law, the copyright
holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};
copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright
holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a Microsoft
product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute
\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the
GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. This pre-granted
permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
of GPL are uphold, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. Thus, to
say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
\medskip
The next phrase of note in \S 2(b) is ``licensed ... at no charge''. This
is a source of great confusion to many. Not a month goes by that FSF does
not receive an email that claims to point out ``a contradiction in GPL''
because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot charge for modified versions
of GPL'ed software, but \S 1 says that they can. The ``at no charge''
means not that redistributors cannot charge for performing the acts
governed by copyright law\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge
for any acts not governed by copyright law, because the license controls
are confined by copyright.}, but rather that they cannot charge a fee
for the \emph{license itself}. In other words, redistributors of
(modified and unmodified) GPL'ed works may charge any amount they choose
for performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring
the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing fee
for the software.
\S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed ... to all
third parties''. This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the
misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made
available to the public at large. However, the text here does not say
that. Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
extend to anyone who might, through the typical distribution chain,
receive a copy of the software. Distribution to all third parties is not
mandated here, but \S 2(b) does require redistributors to license the
derivative works in a way that is extends FIXME to all third parties who may
ultimately receive a copy of the software.
In summary, \S 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must
receive this no-charge license. Namely, they receive it ``under the terms
of this License'', the GPL. When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
a derivative work of GPL'ed software, the license of that whole derivative
work must be GPL and only GPL\@. In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely
with \S 6 (as discussed in Section\~ref{GPLs6} of this tutorial).
\medskip
The final paragraph of \S 2 is worth special mention. It is possible and
quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one
distribution medium. Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a
pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to
give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary
applications. The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with
programs under any license. Despite what you hear from its critics, the
GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and
a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'ed
code-base does not impact the license of other programs. Actual effort
must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms
of the GPL. Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'ed
software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,
as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are
truly GPL'ed.
\section{GPL, \S 3} \section{GPL, \S 3}
@ -641,6 +858,7 @@ that
\chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts} \chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
\section{GPL, Section 4} \section{GPL, Section 4}
\label{GPLs4}
\section{GPL, Section 5} \section{GPL, Section 5}
\label{GPLs5} \label{GPLs5}
@ -654,9 +872,21 @@ that
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty} \chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
\section{GPL, \S 8}
\label{GPLs8}
\section{GPL, \S 9}
\label{GPLs9}
\section{GPL, \S 10}
\label{GPLs10}
\section{GPL, \S 11}
\label{GPLs11}
There was a case where the disclaimer of a contract was negated because it There was a case where the disclaimer of a contract was negated because it
was not "conspicuous" to the person entering into the contract. Therefore, was not "conspicuous" to the person entering into the contract. Therefore,
to make such language "conspicuous" people started bolding it. My question to make such language "conspicuous" people started placing it in bold or caps it. My question
has always been, does that mean all the other parts of the document aren't has always been, does that mean all the other parts of the document aren't
important such that they too need to be "conspicuous." important such that they too need to be "conspicuous."
@ -667,8 +897,18 @@ limitation of liability. The former gets rid of everything that can be
gotten rid of, while the latter limits the liability of the actor for any gotten rid of, while the latter limits the liability of the actor for any
warranties that cannot be disclaimed (such as personal injury, etc.). warranties that cannot be disclaimed (such as personal injury, etc.).
\section{GPL, \S 12}
\label{GPLs12}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{Business Models, Internal Use, and Compliance} \chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
\section{Using Free Software In-House}
\section{Business Models}
\label{Business Models}
\section{Ongoing Compliance}
\appendix \appendix
@ -1091,5 +1331,6 @@ General Public License instead of this License.
\end{document} \end{document}
% LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision % LocalWords: proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
% LocalWords: Yoyodyne % LocalWords: Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre