* Added Dan changes and improved formatting

2004-01-15 22:25:49 +00:00 · 2004-01-15 22:25:49 +00:00 · 2010463550
commit 2010463550
parent b9c8bef7c3
1 changed files with 486 additions and 17 deletions
--- a/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex
+++ b/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex
@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 % FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
 % FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
 \input{one-inch-margins}
 \usepackage{enumerate}
 %\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
 %\setlength\parindent{0pt}
@ -598,12 +599,12 @@ creation of this vibrant commercial and non-commercial Free Software
 economy.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing}
+\chapter{Running Software And Verbatim Copying}
 This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
-GPL\@.  In this chapter, we consider the core terms: GPL \S\S 0--3.  These
+GPL\@.  In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPL \S\S
-are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
+0--2.  These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the
-how software freedom is respected.
+simplest rights that the user receives.
 \section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
 \label{GPLs0}
@ -712,6 +713,340 @@ 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 a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}
 We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to
 consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must
 understand fully before considering \SS 2--3 of GPL\@.  GPL, and Free
 Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of
 ``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not
 ``derivative'') of free software need not abide by the terms of the
 applicable Free Software license.  As much is required by \S 106 of the
 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S 106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software
 licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in \S 0 that ``a
 'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative
 work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software
 that triggers the necessity to comply with the terms of the Free Software
 license under which the original work is distributed. Therefore, one is
 left to ask, just what is a ``derivative work?'' The answer to that
 question differs depending on which court is being asked.
 The analysis in this chapter sets forth the differing definitions of
 derivative work by Circuit. The broadest and most established definition
 of derivative work for software is the abstraction, filtration, and
 comparison test (``the AFC test'') as created and developed by the Second
 Circuit. Some Circuits, including the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit,
 have either adopted narrower versions of the AFC test or have expressly
 rejected the AFC test in favor of a narrower standard. Further, several
 other Circuits have yet to adopt any definition of derivative work for
 software.
 As an introductory matter, it is important to note that literal copying of
 a significant portion of source code is not always sufficient to establish
 that a second work is a derivative work of an original
 program. Conversely, a second work can be a derivative work of an original
 program even though absolutely no copying of the literal source code of
 the original program has been made. This is the case because copyright
 protection does not always extend to all portions of a program’s code,
 while, at the same time, it can extend beyond the literal code of a
 program to its non-literal aspects, such as its architecture, structure,
 sequence, organization, operational modules, and computer-user interface.
 \section{The Copyright Act}
 The copyright act is of little, if any, help in determining the definition
 of a derivative work of software. However, the applicable provisions do
 provide some, albeit quite cursory, guidance. Section 101 of the Copyright
 Act sets forth the following definitions:
 A ``computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used
 directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain
 result.
 A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
 such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
 fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
 reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work
 may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
 revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
 whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work''.
 These are the only provisions in the Copyright Act relevant to the
 determination of what constitutes a derivative work of a computer
 program. Another provision of the Copyright Act that is also relevant to
 the definition of derivative work is \S 102(b), which reads as follows:
 \begin{quotation}
 In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
 extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
 concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
 described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
 \end{quotation}
 Therefore, before a court can ask whether one program is a derivative work
 of another program, it must be careful not to extend copyright protection
 to any ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation,
 concepts, principles, or discoveries contained in the original program. It
 is the implementation of this requirement to ``strip out'' unprotectable
 elements that serves as the most frequent issue over which courts
 disagree.
 \section{Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test}
 As mentioned above, the AFC test for determining whether a computer
 program is a derivative work of an earlier program was created by the
 Second Circuit and has since been adopted in the Fifth, Tenth, and
 Eleventh Circuits. Computer Associates Intl., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982
 F.2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992); Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural
 Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994); Kepner-Tregoe,
 Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 1994); Gates
 Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indust., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993);
 Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997); 5 Bateman
 v. Mnemonics,Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996); and, Mitek Holdings,
 Inc. v. Arce Engineering Co., Inc., 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996).
 Under the AFC test, a court first abstracts from the original program its
 constituent structural parts. Then, the court filters from those
 structural parts all unprotectable portions, including incorporated ideas,
 expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas, and elements
 that are taken from the public domain. Finally, the court compares any and
 all remaining kernels of creative expression to the structure of the
 second program to determine whether the software programs at issue are
 substantially similar so as to warrant a finding that one is the
 derivative work of the other.
 Often, the courts that apply the AFC test will perform a quick initial
 comparison between the entirety of the two programs at issue in order to
 help determine whether one is a derivative work of the other. Such an
 holistic comparison, although not a substitute for the full application of
 the AFC test, sometimes reveals a pattern of copying that is not otherwise
 obvious from the application of the AFC test when, as discussed below,
 only certain components of the original program are compared to the second
 program. If such a pattern is revealed by the quick initial comparison,
 the court is more likely to conclude that the second work is indeed a
 derivative of the original.
 \subsection{Abstraction}
 The first step courts perform under the AFC test is separation of the
 work’s ideas from its expression. In a process akin to reverse
 engineering, the courts dissect the original program to isolate each level
 of abstraction contained within it. Courts have stated that the
 abstractions step is particularly well suited for computer programs
 because it breaks down software in a way that mirrors the way it is
 typically created. However, the Courts have also indicated that this step
 of the AFC test requires substantial guidance from experts, because it is
 extremely fact and situation specific.
 By way of example, one set of abstraction levels is, in descending order
 of generality, as follows: the main purpose, system architecture, abstract
 data types, algorithms and data structures, source code, and object
 code. As this set of abstraction levels shows, during the abstraction step
 of the AFC test, the literal elements of the computer program, namely the
 source and object code, are defined as particular levels of
 abstraction. Further, the source and object code elements of a program are
 not the only elements capable of forming the basis for a finding that a
 second work is a derivative of the program. In some cases, in order to
 avoid a length factual inquiry by the court, the owner of the copyright in
 the original work will submit its own list of what it believes to be the
 protected elements of the original program. In those situations, the court
 will forgo performing its own abstraction, and proceed to second step of
 the AFC test.
 \subsection{Filtration}
 The most difficult and controversial part of the AFC test is the second
 step, which entails the filtration of protectable expression contained in
 the original program from any unprotectable elements nestled therein. In
 determining which elements of a program are unprotectable, courts employ a
 myriad of rules and procedures to sift from a program all the portions
 that are not eligible for copyright protection.
 First, as set forth in \S 102(b) of the Copyright Act, any and all ideas
 embodied in program are to be denied copyright protection. However,
 implementing this rule is not as easy as it first appears. The courts
 readily recognize the intrinsic difficulty in distinguishing between ideas
 and expression and that, given the varying nature of computer programs,
 doing so will be done on an ad hoc basis. The first step of the AFC test,
 the abstraction, exists precisely to assist in this endeavor by helping
 the court separate out all the individual elements of the program so that
 they can be independently analyzed for their expressive nature.
 A second rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of
 the AFC test is the doctrine of merger, which denies copyright protection
 to expression necessarily incidental to the idea being expressed. The
 reasoning behind this doctrine is that when there is only one way to
 express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, meaning that the
 expression cannot receive copyright protection due to the bar on copyright
 protection extending to ideas. In applying this doctrine, a court will ask
 whether the program's use of particular code or structure is necessary for
 the efficient implementation of a certain function or process. If so, then
 that particular code or structure is not protected by copyright and, as a
 result, it is filtered away from the remaining protectable expression.
 A third rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of
 the AFC test is the doctrine of scenes a faire, which denies copyright
 protection to elements of a computer program that are dictated by external
 factors. Such external factors can include:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}
 \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}
 \item the mechanical
 specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended
 to operate;
 \item compatibility requirements of other programs with which a
 program is designed to operate in conjunction;
 \item computer manufacturers'
 design standards;
 \item demands of the industry being serviced; and
 widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry.
 \end{enumerate}
 Any code or structure of a program that was shaped predominantly in
 response to these factors is filtered out and not protected by
 copyright. Lastly, elements of a computer program are also to be filtered
 out if they were taken from the public domain or fail to have sufficient
 originality to merit copyright protection.
 Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely
 filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of
 source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example,
 constant s, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to
 perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although
 common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of
 copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the
 protection given to the expression containing them.
 \subsection{Comparison}
 The third and final step of the AFC test entails a comparison of the
 original program's remaining protectable expression to a second
 program. The issue will be whether any of the protected expression is
 copied in the second program and, if so, what relative importance the
 copied portion has with respect to the original program overall. The
 ultimate inquiry is whether there is ``substantial'' similarity between
 the protected elements of the original program and the potentially
 derivative work. The courts admit that this process is primarily
 qualitative rather than quantitative and is performed on a case-by-case
 basis. In essence, the comparison is an ad hoc determination of whether
 the protectable elements of the original program that are contained in the
 second work are significant or important parts of the original program. If
 so, then the second work is a derivative work of the first. If, however,
 the amount of protectable elements copied in the second work are so small
 as to be de minimis, then the second work is not a derivative work of the
 original.
 \section{Analytic Dissection Test}
 The Ninth Circuit has adopted the analytic dissection test to determine
 whether one program is a derivative work of another. Apple Computer,
 Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The analytic
 dissection test first considers whether there are substantial similarities
 in both the ideas and expressions of the two works at issue. Once the
 similar features are identified, analytic dissection is used to determine
 whether any of those similar features are protected by copyright. This
 step is the same as the filtration step in the AFC test. After identifying
 the copyrightable similar features of the works, the court then decides
 whether those features are entitled to ``broad'' or ``thin''
 protection. ``Thin'' protection is given to non-copyrightable facts or
 ideas that are combined in a way that affords copyright protection only
 from their alignment and presentation, while ``broad'' protection is given
 to copyrightable expression itself. Depending on the degree of protection
 afforded, the court then sets the appropriate standard for a subjective
 comparison of the works to determine whether, as a whole, they are
 sufficiently similar to support a finding that one is a derivative work of
 the other. ``Thin'' protection requires the second work be virtually
 identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while
 ``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.''
 \section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''}
 The First Circuit expressly rejected the AFC test and, instead, takes a
 much narrower view of the meaning of derivative work for software. The
 First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S 102(b) of
 the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate
 computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807
 (1st Cir. 1995). More specifically, the court held that a menu command
 hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not
 merely explain and present the program’s functional capabilities to the
 user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and
 controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying
 of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' can not
 form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of
 another. It is also reasonable to expect that the First Circuit will read
 the unprotectable elements set forth in \S 102(b) broadly, and, as such,
 promulgate a definition of derivative work that is much narrower than that
 which exists under the AFC test.
 \section{No Test Yet Adopted}
 Several circuits, including most notably the Fourth and Seventh, have yet
 to declare their definition of derivative work and whether or not the AFC,
 Analytic Dissection, or some other test best fits their 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 a software derivative work.
 \section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}
 In the preeminent case regarding the definition of a derivative work for
 software, Computer Associates v. Altai, the plaintiff alleged that the its
 program, Adapter, which was used to handle the differences in operating
 system calls and services, was infringed by the defendant's competitive
 program, Oscar.  About 30 percent of Oscar was literally the same code as
 that in Adapter.  After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those
 portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new
 version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without
 have any literal copies of its code.  Feeling slighted still, the
 plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no
 literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights.  In addressing that
 question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.
 In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a
 similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros.  However,
 following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists
 and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either
 in the public domain or required by functional demands on the
 program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that
 did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step
 of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that
 they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relative minor
 contribution to the program as a whole.  Likewise, the similarity between
 the organizational charts of the two programs was not substantial enough
 to support a finding of infringement because they were too simple and
 obvious to contain any original expression.
 Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few 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 over aggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
 However, no cases involving free software licensing have ever gone to
 court.  As free software becomes an ever increasingly important part of
 the economy, it remains to be seen whether or not battle lines will be
 drawn over whether particular programs infringe the rights of free
 software developers or whether the entire community, including industry,
 adopts norms avoiding such risk.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}
 In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights
 and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd
 software.  These sections, \SS 2--3, define the central core rights and
 requirements of GPL\@.
 \section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
 For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
@ -1073,6 +1408,125 @@ prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the
 many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is
 only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{The Implied Patent Grant in GPL}
 We digress again briefly from our section-by-section consideration of GPL
 to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law.  The
 GPL, despite being silent with respect to patents, actually confers on its
 licensees more rights to a licensor's patents than those licenses that
 purport to address the issue.  This is the case because patent law, under
 the doctrine of implied license, gives to each distribute of a patented
 article a license from the distributor to practice any patent claims owned
 or held by the distributor that cover the distributed article.  The
 implied license also extends to any patent claims owned or held by the
 distributor that cover ``reasonably contemplated uses'' of the patented
 article.  To quote the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court
 for patent cases other than the Supreme Court:
 \begin{quotation}
 Generally, when a seller sells a product without restriction, it in
 effect promises the purchaser that in exchange for the price paid, it will
 not interfere with the purchaser's full enjoyment of the product
 purchased. The buyer has an implied license under any patents of the
 seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the
 parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.
 \end{quotation}
 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d
 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
 Of course, free software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed
 restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely
 to prevent the application of the implied license doctrine to free
 software, because software licensed under the GPL grants the licensee the
 right to make, use, and sell the software, each of which are exclusive
 rights of a patent holder.  Therefore, although the GPL does not expressly
 grant the licensee the right to do those things under any patents the
 licensor may have that cover the software or its reasonably contemplated
 uses, by licensing the software under the GPL, the distributor impliedly
 licenses those patents to the GPL licensee with respect to the GPL
 licensed software.
 An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPL'd
 software is what would be considered ``uses of the [software] to which the
 parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.''  A clever
 advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPL is larger in
 scope than the express license in other free software licenses with
 express patent grants, in that, the patent license clause of many of those
 licenses are specifically limited to the patent claims covered by the code
 as licensed by the patentee.
 To the contrary, GPL's implied patent license grants the GPL licensee a
 patent license to do much more than just that because the GPL licensee,
 under the doctrine of implied patent license, is free to practice any
 patent claims held by the licensor that cover ``reasonably contemplated
 uses'' of the GPL'd code, which may very well include creation and
 distribution of derivative works since the GPL's terms, under which the
 patented code is distributed, expressly permits such activity.
 Further supporting this result is the Federal Circuit's pronouncement that
 the recipient of a patented article has, not only an implied license to
 make, use, and sell the article, but also an implied patent license to
 repair the article to enable it to function properly.  Bottom Line Mgmt.,
 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
 of constant evolution and improvement.  In this way, the law of implied
 patent license used by the GPL ensures that the community mutually
 benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
 Note that simply because GPL'd software has an implied patent license does
 not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPL'd code become
 worthless.  To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable
 against either:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}
 \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}
 \item any software other than that licensed under the GPL by the patent
  holder, and
 \item any party that does not comply with the GPL
 with respect to the licensed software.
 \end{enumerate}
 \newcommand{\compB}{$\mathcal{B}$}
 \newcommand{\compA}{$\mathcal{A}$}
 For example, if Company \compA has a patent on advanced web browsing, but
 also licenses a web browsing software program under the GPL, then it
 cannot assert the patent against any party that takes a license to its
 program under the GPL.  However, if a party uses that program without
 complying with the GPL, then Company \compA can assert, not just copyright
 infringement claims against the non-GPL-compliant party, but also
 infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
 extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPL.  Further, if
 Company \compB distributes a competitive advanced web browsing 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 distributed under the GPL, as Company \compB can not grant
 implied licenses to Company \compA's patent.
 This result also reassures companies that they need not fear loosing their
 proprietary value in patents to competitors through the GPL implied patent
 license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPL's
 terms can benefit from the implied patent license.  To continue the
 example above, Company \compB does not receive a free ride on Company
 \compA's patent, as Company \compB has not licensed-in and then
 redistributed Company A's advanced web browser under the GPL.  If Company
 \compB does do that, however, Company \compA still has not lost
 competitive advantage against Company \compB, as Company \compB must then,
 when it re-distributes Company \compA's program, grant an implied license
 to any of its patents that cover the program.  Further, if Company \compB
 relicenses an improved version of Company A's program, it must do so under
 the GPL, meaning that any patents it holds that cover the improved version
 are impliedly licensed to any licensee.  As such, the only way Company
 \compB can benefit from Company \compA's implied patent license, is if it,
 itself, distributes Company \compA's software program and grants an
 implied patent license to any of its patents that cover that program.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
@ -1284,28 +1738,43 @@ copyright licenses.
 \label{GPLs11}
 All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital
-letters.  Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
+letters. Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
 of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of
-the parties.  Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people
+the parties. Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people
-started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text.  It now seems
+started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text. It now seems
 to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
 Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because
 its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad.  However, \S 11
 contains a jurisdictional savings provision, which states that it is to be
 interpreted only as broadly as allowed by applicable law.  Such a
 provision ensures that both it, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any
 jurisdiction, regardless of any particular law regarding the
 permissibility of certain warranty disclaimers.
 Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1
-permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
+permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11 affirms.
 affirms.
 \section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
 \label{GPLs12}
 There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
-cannot be disclaimed.  Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
+cannot be disclaimed. Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
-warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12.
+warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12. \S
-\S 11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
+11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
-disavowed.  \S 12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
+disavowed. \S 12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
 warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
-So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
+Again, some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions
 because its limitation of liability is impermissibly broad.  However, \S
 12, just like its sister, \S 11, contains a jurisdictional savings
 provision, which states that it is to be interpreted only as broadly as
 allowed by applicable law.  As stated above, such a provision ensures that
 both \S 12, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any jurisdiction,
 regardless of any particular law regarding the permissibility of limiting
 liability.
 So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{The Lesser GPL}
@ -1988,11 +2457,9 @@ modification follow.
 \end{center}
 %\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alpha{enumi}}
 \begin{enumerate}
 \addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
 \item
 This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
@ -2933,4 +3400,6 @@ That's all there is to it!
 % LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
 % LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
 % LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo glibc
-% LocalWords:  TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV
+% LocalWords:  TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce
 % LocalWords:  unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery
 % LocalWords:  impermissibly