Spell check.
This commit is contained in:
parent
ceccb45e25
commit
16917f85a2
1 changed files with 41 additions and 18 deletions
59
gpl-lgpl.tex
59
gpl-lgpl.tex
|
@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ among friends.
|
|||
|
||||
The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom. Commercial sharing
|
||||
includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
|
||||
be distribted for any monetary
|
||||
be distributed for any monetary
|
||||
price to anyone. Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
|
||||
the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
|
||||
to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
|
||||
|
@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
|
|||
For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all
|
||||
developers -- from single-person contractors to large software
|
||||
companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as
|
||||
improvers of Free Software. All forms of such service marketing must
|
||||
augmenters of Free Software. All forms of such service marketing must
|
||||
be equally available to all.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
|
||||
|
@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ were simply copied and rewritten slightly for each new use\footnote{It
|
|||
University of California at Berkeley gave unilateral permission to remove
|
||||
the clause from \textit{its} copyrighted works, others who adapted the BSD
|
||||
license with their own names in place of UC-Berkeley's never have.}. The
|
||||
GPLv1's innovation of reuable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
|
||||
GPLv1's innovation of reusable licensing infrastructure, an obvious fact
|
||||
today, was indeed a novel invention for its day\footnote{We're all just
|
||||
grateful that the FSF also opposes business method patents, since the FSF's
|
||||
patent on a ``method for reusable licensing infrastructure'' would have
|
||||
|
@ -944,7 +944,7 @@ This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.
|
|||
|
||||
Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such
|
||||
as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License
|
||||
and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders chosing
|
||||
and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
|
||||
to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense
|
||||
their copyrighted works under new versions. Of course ,Creative Commons, the
|
||||
Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally
|
||||
|
@ -1098,13 +1098,13 @@ Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do
|
|||
not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the
|
||||
\href{http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/hb0019.htm}{Maryland's} and \href{http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+SB372ER}{Virginia's} UCITA bills, there are few 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
|
||||
GPL requires re distributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
|
||||
Sections~\ref{GPLv2s11} and~\ref{GPLv2s12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
|
||||
warranty disclaimers.)
|
||||
|
||||
Note finally that GPLv2~\S1 creates groundwork for the important defense of
|
||||
commercial freedom. GPLv2~\S1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
|
||||
copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
|
||||
copies, one may make money. Re distributors 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
|
||||
|
@ -1397,7 +1397,7 @@ interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with
|
|||
respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a
|
||||
derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume
|
||||
that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the
|
||||
majority rule amongst those circuits that have a standard for defining
|
||||
majority rule among those circuits that have a standard for defining
|
||||
a software derivative work.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}
|
||||
|
@ -1439,14 +1439,14 @@ structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
|
|||
Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
|
||||
both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the
|
||||
First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for
|
||||
compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
|
||||
compatibility'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
|
||||
Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
|
||||
and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b).
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
|
||||
detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
|
||||
clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
|
||||
the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
|
||||
the defendant or over-aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1565,7 +1565,7 @@ holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a proprietary
|
|||
product --- would its copyright holders give you permission to create and distribute
|
||||
\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?) The license of \workg{}, the
|
||||
GPL, states the options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
|
||||
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. GPL's pregranted
|
||||
who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. GPL's pre-granted
|
||||
permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
|
||||
of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
|
||||
would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. (Thus, to
|
||||
|
@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ GPL'd software into mobile devices with very tight memory and space
|
|||
constraints. In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
|
||||
binaries on the machine itself might not be an option. While it is
|
||||
recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
|
||||
GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.
|
||||
GPL does provide options when such distribution is unfeasible.
|
||||
|
||||
\label{GPLv2s3-medium-customarily}
|
||||
GPLv2~\S3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
|
||||
|
@ -1885,7 +1885,7 @@ Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, the
|
|||
Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the
|
||||
patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor.
|
||||
This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software
|
||||
is distributed amongst many entities within the community for the purpose
|
||||
is distributed among many entities within the community for the purpose
|
||||
of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied
|
||||
patent license used by the GPLv2 ensures that the community mutually
|
||||
benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
|
||||
|
@ -1920,7 +1920,7 @@ infringement claims against the non-GPLv2-compliant party and
|
|||
infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
|
||||
extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPLv2. Further, if
|
||||
Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program
|
||||
that is not a derivative work of Company \compA{}'s GPL'ed Web browsing software
|
||||
that is not a derivative work of Company \compA{}'s GPL'd Web browsing software
|
||||
program, Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or
|
||||
distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's
|
||||
program is also distributed under the GPLv2, as Company \compB{} can not grant
|
||||
|
@ -2017,7 +2017,7 @@ valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
|
|||
as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
|
||||
|
||||
The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.'' Usually, no rights
|
||||
are transfered between parties. By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
|
||||
are transferred between parties. By contrast, the GPL is primarily a permission
|
||||
slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited
|
||||
by copyright law. As such, GPL needs no acceptance ceremony; the
|
||||
licensee is not even required to accept the license.
|
||||
|
@ -2912,7 +2912,7 @@ limitation or further obligation.
|
|||
|
||||
As discussed in \S~\ref{GPLv3-drm} of this tutorial, GPLv3 seeks thwart
|
||||
technical measures such as signature checks in hardware to prevent
|
||||
modification of GPLed software on a device.
|
||||
modification of GPL'd software on a device.
|
||||
|
||||
To address this issue, GPLv3~\S6 requires that parties distributing object
|
||||
code provide recipients with the source code through certain means. When
|
||||
|
@ -2997,7 +2997,7 @@ including small businesses and schools, and had only recently been
|
|||
promoted for use in the home.}.
|
||||
|
||||
However, Magnuson-Moss is not a perfect fit because in the area of components
|
||||
of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss underinclusive.
|
||||
of dwellings, the settled interpretation under Magnuson-Moss under-inclusive.
|
||||
Depending on how such components are manufactured or sold, they may or may
|
||||
not be considered Magnuson-Moss consumer products.\footnote{Building
|
||||
materials that are purchased directly by a consumer from a retailer, for
|
||||
|
@ -3324,7 +3324,7 @@ However, the patent licensing practices that GPLv2~\S7 (corresponding to
|
|||
GPLv3~\S12) is designed to prevent is only one of several ways in which
|
||||
software patents threaten to make free programs non-free and to prevent users
|
||||
from exercising their rights under the GPL. GPLv3 takes a more comprehensive
|
||||
approach to combatting the danger of patents.
|
||||
approach to combating the danger of patents.
|
||||
|
||||
GPLv2~\S7 has seen some success in deterring conduct that would otherwise
|
||||
result in denial of full downstream enjoyment of GPL rights, and thus it is
|
||||
|
@ -3528,7 +3528,7 @@ this make a mockery of free software, and we must do everything in our power
|
|||
to stop them.
|
||||
|
||||
First, GPLv3~\S11\P6 states that any license that protects some recipients of
|
||||
GPLed software must be extended to all recipients of the software.
|
||||
GPL'd software must be extended to all recipients of the software.
|
||||
If conveyors arrange to provide patent
|
||||
protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that
|
||||
protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software,
|
||||
|
@ -4338,3 +4338,26 @@ compliance in new situations.
|
|||
% =====================================================================
|
||||
% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
|
||||
% =====================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
%% LocalWords: Sebro Novalis Ravicher GPLv GPL'd copylefted LGPLv OSI USC
|
||||
%% LocalWords: noncommercially counterintuitive Berne copyrightable DRM UC
|
||||
%% LocalWords: proprietarize proprietarization Stallman's Tridgell's RMS
|
||||
%% LocalWords: Lessig Lessig's Stallman Proto GPLs proto Tai pre GPL's ful
|
||||
%% LocalWords: legalbol AGPLv Runtime licensor licensors relicense UCITA
|
||||
%% LocalWords: unprotectable Intl nd th Kepner Tregoe Bando Indust Mitel
|
||||
%% LocalWords: Iqtel Bateman Mitek Arce protectable hoc faire de minimis
|
||||
%% LocalWords: Borland Int'l uncopyrightable LLC APIs Ent Connectix DVD's
|
||||
%% LocalWords: redistributor diachronic unshared subpart redistributors
|
||||
%% LocalWords: CDs userbase reshifts licensor's distributee impliedly Mgmt
|
||||
%% LocalWords: patentee relicenses irrevocability Jacobsen Katzer TRW CCS
|
||||
%% LocalWords: Unfreedonia administrivia Relicensing impermissibly centric
|
||||
%% LocalWords: permissibility firehose bytecode minified Javascript DLLs
|
||||
%% LocalWords: preprocessors functionalities offsite sublicensing DMCA CFR
|
||||
%% LocalWords: anticircumvention WIPO BitTorrent multidirectional Magnuson
|
||||
%% LocalWords: subdefinition Dryvit Stroebner Tandy TRS superset LGPL SLES
|
||||
%% LocalWords: cryptographic relicensing removability sublicensed Novell
|
||||
%% LocalWords: anticompetitive administrability sublicensable licensable
|
||||
%% LocalWords: sublicense sublicensees sublicenses affixation Novell's
|
||||
%% LocalWords: severability Affero LGPL'd lingua franca glibc facto LGPL's
|
||||
%% LocalWords: relicensed runtime subunits relink downloadable MontaVista
|
||||
%% LocalWords: CodeSourcery OpenTV MySQL TrollTech
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue