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

Rework these two paragraphs.

Browse source 
As previously written, these two paragraphs were saying very little with
a lot of words.  I've attempted to rework it a bit.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-09-17 18:31:43 -04:00
parent 20361c3263
commit 3e638118b8
1 changed files with 9 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
compliance-guide.tex
View file

@ -157,13 +157,18 @@ the GPL'd components.\footnote{However, these programs do often combine
with LGPL'd libraries. This is discussed in detail in \S~\ref{lgpl}.} with LGPL'd libraries. This is discussed in detail in \S~\ref{lgpl}.}
In the latter case, where the work is unquestionably a separate work of In the latter case, where the work is unquestionably a separate work of
creative expression, no copyleft provisions are invoked. creative expression, no copyleft provisions are invoked.
The core compliance issue faced, thus, in such a situation, is not an discussion of what is or is not a
combined or derivative work, but rather, issues related to distribution and
conveyance of binary works based on GPL'd source, but without Complete,
Corresponding Source. This tutorial therefore focuses primarily on that issue.
Admittedly, a tiny Admittedly, a tiny
minority of situations lie outside these two categories, and thus minority of compliance situations relate to question of derivative and
do involve close questions about derivative and combined works. Those combined words. Those
situations admittedly do require a highly situations are so rare, and the details from situation to situation differ
greatly. Thus, such situations require a highly
fact-dependent analysis and cannot be addressed in a general-purpose fact-dependent analysis and cannot be addressed in a general-purpose
document, anyway. document such as this one.
\medskip \medskip