* Wrote about GPL Section 9, 10, 11, and 12

(chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}): Wrote chapter.

gpl-lgpl.tex

@@ -1233,31 +1233,66 @@ free without otherwise negating parts of the license.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
 
-\section{GPL \S 9}
+\S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL.  The balance
+of the GPL handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
+liability.
+
+\section{GPL \S 9: FSF as stewards of GPL}
 \label{GPLs9}
 
-\section{GPL \S 10}
+FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
+\S 9 expresses this.  While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
+of GPL'ed software around the world is shared among thousands of
+individuals and organizations, the license itself needs a single steward.
+Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous.  Forking
+of licensing is disastrous.
+
+FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991.  GPL,
+version 3, is under current internal drafting.  FSF's plan is to have a
+long and engaging comment period.  The goal of GPL is defend freedom, and
+a gigantic community depends on that freedom now.  FSF hopes to take all
+stakeholders' opinions under advisement.
+
+\section{GPL \S 10: Relicensing Permitted}
 \label{GPLs10}
 
-\section{GPL \S 11}
+\S 10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of
+copyright law.  Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software
+program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate
+copyright licenses.
+
+\section{GPL \S 11: No Warranty}
 \label{GPLs11}
 
-There was a case where the disclaimer of a contract was negated because it
+With \S 11, the boilerplate language of all copyright licenses begins.
-was not "conspicuous" to the person entering into the contract.  Therefore,
+Sometimes, companies are concerned that there is no default warranty on
-to make such language "conspicuous" people started placing it in bold or caps it.  My question
+GPL'ed software.  However, nearly all proprietary software licensing
-has always been, does that mean all the other parts of the document aren't
+agreements disclaim warranty as well.
-important such that they too need to be "conspicuous."
 
-As for disclaiming warranties, remember that there are many types of
+All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital
-warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them cannot be disclaimed.
+letters.  Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
-Therefore, usually agreements will have both a warranty disclaimer and a
+of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of
-limitation of liability.  The former gets rid of everything that can be
+the parties.  Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people
-gotten rid of, while the latter limits the liability of the actor for any
+started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text.  It now seems
-warranties that cannot be disclaimed (such as personal injury, etc.).
+to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
+
+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
+affirms.
 
 \section{GPL, \S 12}
 \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
+warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12.
+\S 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
+warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
+
+So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
+
+
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}